South Africa Case Law

Industrial Corporation of South Africa v MARA Corporation and Others (2023/035089)

Industrial Corporation of South Africa v MARA Corporation and Others (2023/035089) [2025] ZAGPJHC 412 (3 April 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/035089

Judge

Nty Siwendu

The High Court refused defendants’ bid to amend a plea to add misrepresentation and rectification defences to a guarantee claim, finding the amendments vague and excipiable.

• Guarantee Liability
• Rectification Of Contract
• Oral Misrepresentation
• Parol Evidence Rule
• Pleading Amendment
• Exception And Excipiability

K2012020306 (Pty) Ltd and Another v De Wet and Others (2022/009661)

K2012020306 (Pty) Ltd and Another v De Wet and Others (2022/009661) [2025] ZAGPJHC 292 (18 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/009661

Judge

M V Noko

The court found that Rule 18(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court does not require an attorney with Right of Appearance in the High Court to sign pleadings twice. The defendants' plea was valid and effective, and no condonation was required for its late filing. The plaintiffs' application to strike out was dismissed as non-compliance with directives did not cause prejudice, and both parties sought condonation for procedural irregularities. Claims in the first action based on non-payment and success in arbitration were abandoned, but claims for misappropriation of trust funds, delict, and induceme…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Right Of Appearance
• Pleading Amendment
• Misappropriation Of Trust Funds
• Breach Of Contract
• Inducement To Contract

Cope and Another v Liversage (4151/2021)

Cope and Another v Liversage (4151/2021) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 20 (5 March 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

4151/2021

Judge

Managa

The court held that Rule 35(14) is intended solely for the purpose of pleading, and once the applicants have filed their plea, they are precluded from relying on Rule 35(14) to compel discovery. The applicants' request for documents to amend their plea or formulate a counterclaim falls outside the scope of Rule 35(14) and amounts to a fishing expedition. The proper procedure for compelling compliance with Rule 35(14) is through Rule 30A, which was not followed. Regarding Rule 35(3), the court found that the applicants failed to establish the relevance of the requested documents to the issues…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35 Application
• Pleading Amendment
• Counterclaim
• Costs Order

Tom Campher Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Tom Campher Volvo Cars, Johannesburg v Andre (Reasons) (1697/2024)

Tom Campher Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Tom Campher Volvo Cars, Johannesburg v Andre (Reasons) (1697/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 75 (17 December 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1697/2024

Judge

O H Ronaasen

The High Court granted summary judgment where the defendant failed to file a complying affidavit opposing the application and relied instead on a notice to amend.

• Summary Judgment
• Rule 32
• Pleading Amendment
• Condonation
• Affidavit Evidence
• Summary-judgment

Fourie v Minister of Police (CIV APP FB03/2024)

Fourie v Minister of Police (CIV APP FB03/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 312 (31 October 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CIV APP FB03/2024

Judges

DJAJE, MFENYANA, MAKOTI

Full-bench appeal upheld after the High Court found police assaulted the appellant and wrongly excluded agreed expert evidence on psychological harm and future medical costs.

• Damages For Assault
• Future Medical Expenses
• Admissibility Of Expert Evidence
• Pleading Amendment
• Quantum Of Damages
• Damages-for-assault

Metsimaholo Local Municipality v Unitrade 1047 (Pty) Ltd t/a Isidingo Security Services (245/2024)

Metsimaholo Local Municipality v Unitrade 1047 (Pty) Ltd t/a Isidingo Security Services (245/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 335 (25 October 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

245/2024

Judge

Daniso

High Court partly allowed an amendment application in a contractual dispute, rejecting set-off-based plea amendments but permitting a conditional counterclaim for unjust enrichment.

• Pleading Amendment
• Set Off
• Unjust Enrichment
• Contractual Liability
• Costs Orders
• Pleading-amendment

Best Drive Holdings (Pty) Limited and Another v Lewis (2022/027451)

Best Drive Holdings (Pty) Limited and Another v Lewis (2022/027451) [2024] ZAGPJHC 895 (17 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/027451

Judge

N.J. Graves

The court found that the 2019 loan agreement is a separate and distinct contract from the 2018 agreement, as evidenced by the presence of an 'entire agreement' clause (clause 11.6) which expressly supersedes all prior agreements. The applicants' attempt to plead that the 2019 agreement is a mere amendment of the 2018 agreement is not sustainable, as the text and structure of the two agreements differ materially in loan amount, interest provisions, and the absence of a suretyship clause in the 2019 agreement. The suretyship executed by the respondent relates only to the 2018 agreement and cann…

Source excerpt

• Pleading Amendment
• Suretyship Liability
• Novation
• Parol Evidence Rule
• Contractual Interpretation

More v Khoza (2022/039544)

More v Khoza (2022/039544) [2024] ZAGPJHC 619 (9 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/039544

Judge

Green

The High Court dismissed an application to amend particulars of claim in a defamation matter, finding the pleaded interview remarks were not capable of referring to the plaintiff.

• Defamation
• Pleading Amendment
• Exception Procedure
• Wrongfulness
• Intention To Defame
• Pleading-amendment

Auto and Truck Tyres (Pty) Ltd v Symes and Others (2019/34782)

Auto and Truck Tyres (Pty) Ltd v Symes and Others (2019/34782) [2024] ZAGPJHC 425 (2 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/34782

Judge

RJ Moultrie

The court held that the defendant may not amend its plea to deny that the pleaded payments were made to it, as this would contradict its own factual averments and documentary evidence. However, the defendant may amend its plea to clarify that it did not receive or benefit from the payments, as no binding admission to the contrary was made in the pleadings. The withdrawal of the pre-trial admission regarding the plaintiffs' status as joint liquidators and the company's winding up is refused, as the defendant provided no explanation for the withdrawal and such admissions are binding unless spec…

Source excerpt

• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Pleading Amendment
• Withdrawal Of Admission
• Liquidation
• Dispositions Without Value

Free State Wheels (Pty) Ltd v WRC Rentals (Pty) Ltd and Others (2014/2023)

Free State Wheels (Pty) Ltd v WRC Rentals (Pty) Ltd and Others (2014/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 87 (14 March 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2014/2023

Judge

Van Zyl

The High Court allowed an amendment to particulars of claim, finding the changes clarified the pleadings and did not make them excipiable.

• Pleading Amendment
• Vague And Embarrassing
• Rule 28
• Rule 23
• Interest Claims
• Pleading-amendment