South Africa Case Law

Mtwazi v MEC for Education and Others (472/2020)

Mtwazi v MEC for Education and Others (472/2020) [2023] ZAECBHC 37 (5 December 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

472/2020

Judge

T.V Norman

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim, in so far as they relate to the third defendant, failed to set out sufficient material facts to establish a cause of action as required by Rule 18(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The allegations in paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 were conclusory and did not provide the necessary factual basis linking the conduct of the third defendant to the damages claimed. The court held that only the paragraphs relating to the third defendant should be set aside, as the first and second defendants had already pleaded and their issues were crystallised.…

Source excerpt

• Pleading Irregularity
• Rule 18 Compliance
• Rule 30 Application
• Cause Of Action
• Damages Pleading

Kubupay (Pty) Ltd v Mayibuye Transport Corporation (EL1203/2022)

Kubupay (Pty) Ltd v Mayibuye Transport Corporation (EL1203/2022) [2023] ZAECELLC 21 (27 July 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL1203/2022

Judge

S A Collett

The court found that the plaintiff's application to strike out was not the correct procedure for addressing the alleged irregularity in the defendant's plea. The plaintiff's complaint related to a failure to comply with Rule 18(6), which is an irregularity of form rather than substance. The appropriate remedy for such irregularity is to invoke Rule 30, not Rule 23(2). The court held that applications under Rule 23(2) are interlocutory and do not require affidavits, and that the plaintiff's application was procedurally competent. However, the court declined to make a finding on whether the def…

Source excerpt

• Striking Out Irrelevant Matter
• Pleading Irregularity
• Rule 23 Application
• Rule 18 Compliance

Willow and Aloe Grove Body Corporate v Big Bell Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Citynet (41535/2019)

Willow and Aloe Grove Body Corporate v Big Bell Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Citynet (41535/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 267 (26 October 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

41535/2019

Judge

I Opperman

The court struck out a pleaded admission and annexure because they were part of without prejudice settlement communications and therefore inadmissible.

• Without Prejudice Rule
• Rule 23 Application
• Pleading Irregularity
• Facta Probanda
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Without-prejudice-rule

Brondev Developments (Pty) Ltd and Another v City Of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (74422/16)

Brondev Developments (Pty) Ltd and Another v City Of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (74422/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 44 (22 February 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

74422/16

Judge

A E Andrews

The High Court dismissed an exception to a special plea but upheld an exception to the defendant’s plea, finding contradictory averments prejudicial.

• Exception Procedure
• Pleading Irregularity
• Debate Of Account
• Town Planning And Townships Ordinance
• Fiduciary Duty
• Contractual Obligation

Road Accident Fund v Britz obo Britz (76318/2013)

Road Accident Fund v Britz obo Britz (76318/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 762 (3 November 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

76318/2013

Judge

Petersen

The court found that while the defendant was barred from filing its plea, the delay was minimal and did not cause prejudice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff waited over two years before taking further steps, and the defendant's late plea indicated its intention to proceed with the litigation. The court held that a flexible approach to the rules was warranted in the interests of justice, prioritizing substance over form. The bar was lifted, and the defendant's plea was allowed to stand. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff for opposing the application, as the plaintiff was justified in its oppos…

Source excerpt

• Removal Of Bar
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Rule 27
• Rule 30
• Pleading Irregularity

Standard Bank v Jardine (46797/2013)

Standard Bank v Jardine (46797/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 790 (15 October 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

46797/2013

Judge

Louw

The court refused summary judgment and granted leave to defend because the plaintiff’s authority documents were defective and the served annexures were incomplete.

• Summary Judgment
• Authority Of Attorney
• Defective Process
• National Credit Act Compliance
• Mortgage Bond
• Pleading Irregularity

Benade and Another v Absa Bank Limited (11271/2012)

Benade and Another v Absa Bank Limited (11271/2012) [2014] ZAWCHC 84 (16 May 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11271/2012

Judge

Pillay

The court removed a bar and allowed the applicants to deliver an exception, finding a sufficient explanation for delay and a bona fide reckless-credit defence.

• Removal Of Bar
• Exception Procedure
• Reckless Credit
• National Credit Act
• Pleading Irregularity
• Removal-of-bar

St Clair Cooper NO and Others v Dipalemo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others; In re: St Clair Cooper NO and Others v Dipalemo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (3523/2012)

St Clair Cooper NO and Others v Dipalemo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others; In re: St Clair Cooper NO and Others v Dipalemo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (3523/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 147 (29 August 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3523/2012

Judge

L J Lekale

High Court decision on a Rule 30 application to strike a plea for alleged Rule 18 non-compliance. The court held the agreement mentioned was only background and dismissed the application with costs.

• Pleading Irregularity
• Rule 18 Compliance
• Rule 30 Application
• Allocation Of Funds
• Contractual Basis Of Defence
• Civil-procedure

Jukuda v African Pioneer Investments Ltd and Another (1770/2008)

Jukuda v African Pioneer Investments Ltd and Another (1770/2008) [2009] ZAECPEHC 2 (5 March 2009)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1770/2008

Judge

Jones

The court upheld a Rule 30 application and exceptions, finding the particulars of claim vague, embarrassing, and lacking a cause of action.

• Pleading Irregularity
• Exception No Cause Of Action
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Shareholder Claims
• Dividends
• Director Liability