South Africa Case Law

Firmpulse Trading CC and Another v Kleynhans and Another (5115/2023)

Firmpulse Trading CC and Another v Kleynhans and Another (5115/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 166 (27 May 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5115/2023

Judge

Opperman J

The court found that the annexure to the particulars of claim, which purported to describe the farm implements sought to be vindicated, was drafted inappropriately, lacked sufficient detail, and was riddled with mistakes. The use of different languages in the pleadings was not fatal, but the vague and generic descriptions rendered it legally impossible for the defendants to respond or for the court to adjudicate the claim. The quantum claimed was unsupported by any indication of how the values were determined. The defects could not be cured at trial, as fair trial principles require both part…

Source excerpt

• Exception Under Rule 23
• Rei Vindicatio
• Pleading Requirements
• Identification Of Property
• Quantum Of Claim

Nedbank Ltd v Chlorcape (Pty) Ltd (2022-056297)

Nedbank Ltd v Chlorcape (Pty) Ltd (2022-056297) [2024] ZAGPJHC 218 (4 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022-056297

Judge

Moorcroft

The High Court upheld three exceptions to particulars of claim in a banking delict case, struck out claims against Nedbank, and granted leave to amend.

• Exception Under Rule 23
• Bank Duty Of Care
• Financial Intelligence Centre Act
• Negligence
• Wrongfulness
• Pleading Requirements

SASFIN Bank Ltd & another v Motors Hoogland Bethlehem CC & others (3719/2020)

SASFIN Bank Ltd & another v Motors Hoogland Bethlehem CC & others (3719/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 144 (15 April 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3719/2020

Judge

C.S. Parks

The court found that the rental and installation of equipment, such as CCTV and PABX systems, does not amount to rendering a security service under PSIRA or an electronic communications service under ECA. The agreements pertain solely to the leasing of equipment, not the provision of regulated services. The defendants had the benefit of the equipment for over two years and only raised the issue of regulatory compliance upon default. The particulars of claim are not vague or embarrassing, and the excipients are able to plead to them. The exceptions were dismissed as the defendants failed to de…

Source excerpt

• Exception Under Rule 23
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Rental Agreement
• Cession Of Rights
• Specific Performance