South Africa Case Law

Makgomo v Minister of Police (4807/2021)

Makgomo v Minister of Police (4807/2021) [2025] ZALMPPHC 83 (25 April 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

4807/2021

Judge

MB Letsoalo

The court found that the plaintiff and her son gave detailed oral evidence of her arrest and detention by police officers in uniform, using a marked police vehicle, and that the particulars of claim and evidence cumulatively established the material facts necessary for her claim. The absence of the officers' names and explicit pleading of vicarious liability did not render the case factually or legally hopeless, as the defendant was cited in his capacity as employer and custodian of the SAPS, and the facts were fully canvassed. Applying the test for absolution from the instance, the court hel…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Vicarious Liability
• Absolution From The Instance
• Pleadings Requirements

Barnard N.O and Others v Route Holdings (Pty) Ltd (5907/2023)

Barnard N.O and Others v Route Holdings (Pty) Ltd (5907/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 291 (10 September 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5907/2023

Judge

Mahlangu AJ

The High Court granted condonation for a late replying affidavit and ordered production of ledger accounts under Rule 35(14) so the applicants could plead.

• Condonation
• Rule 35 14 Discovery
• Pleadings Requirements
• Sale Of Shares Agreement
• Loan Agreement
• Rule-35-14

Aggenbach v Wessels (1696/21)

Aggenbach v Wessels (1696/21) [2024] ZANWHC 170 (3 July 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1696/21

Judge

A Reddy

The High Court dismissed an exception to particulars of claim in an unjust enrichment dispute over life insurance proceeds and ordered the defendant to plead.

• Unjust Enrichment
• Condictio Sine Causa
• Exception Procedure
• Pleadings Requirements
• Unjust-enrichment
• Condictio-sine-causa

M.M v Henley Air (Pty) Ltd (7470/2022)

M.M v Henley Air (Pty) Ltd (7470/2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 29 (2 April 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

7470/2022

Judge

Kganyago

The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead interruption of prescription in her particulars of claim and did not file a replication after the defendant raised prescription by special plea. The issue of interruption was only raised in heads of argument, which is procedurally improper and prejudicial to the defendant. The defendant's without prejudice letter did not contain an unequivocal acknowledgment of liability and expressly denied liability, thus falling outside the exception established in KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investment. The defendant was entitled to raise prescriptio…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Special Plea
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Without Prejudice Rule
• Pleadings Requirements

Mazibo v Mahlangu and Another (038392/2023)

Mazibo v Mahlangu and Another (038392/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 201 (29 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

038392/2023

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court upheld an exception to particulars of claim that were vague and embarrassing, finding the pleading failed to disclose a cause of action and struck it out.

• Pleadings Requirements
• Exception Procedure
• Vague And Embarrassing
• Cause Of Action
• Quantum Of Damages
• Civil-procedure

Van Baalen and Another v ABSA Bank (22652/2022)

Van Baalen and Another v ABSA Bank (22652/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 26 (3 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22652/2022

Judge

E M Kubushi

The court held that the failure to annex true copies of the written credit agreements to the particulars of claim, as required by Uniform Rule 18(6), does not render the claim excipiable where the agreements have been misplaced and the respondent has pleaded the material terms and explained the inability to annex the documents. The substantive law does not preclude enforcement of a written contract merely because it is lost or destroyed. The respondent's particulars of claim set out sufficient terms to enable the excipients to plead thereto, and the issue of the agreements' existence and term…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 18 6
• Credit Agreements
• Pleadings Requirements
• Best Evidence Rule
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement

Black Sheep Capital (Pty) Ltd v Du Toit and Others (2021/35297)

Black Sheep Capital (Pty) Ltd v Du Toit and Others (2021/35297) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1483 (21 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/35297

Judge

Nty Siwendu

High Court exception upheld because the plaintiff’s particulars lacked sufficient facts to support a claim that subsequent share-sale agreements were void.

• Pleadings Requirements
• Void Agreements
• Shareholder Rights
• Companies Act
• Exception Procedure
• Exceptions

Mathekga v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (20002/2014)

Mathekga v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (20002/2014) [2023] ZAGPPHC 606 (28 July 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20002/2014

Judge

N Tshombe

The High Court dismissed a passenger injury claim against PRASA after finding the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that negligence caused the fall.

• Negligence
• Onus Of Proof
• Pleadings Requirements
• Personal Injury
• Single Witness Evidence
• Personal-injury

Aecom SA (Pty) Limited v Rustenburg Local Municipality (1341/2017)

Aecom SA (Pty) Limited v Rustenburg Local Municipality (1341/2017) [2023] ZANWHC 8 (1 February 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1341/2017

Judge

Mahlangu

The High Court upheld a special plea of non-locus standi because the plaintiff did not plead registration under the Engineering Profession Act.

• Locus Standi
• Engineering Profession Act
• Pleadings Requirements
• Locus-standi
• Engineering-profession-act
• Civil-procedure

SS Profiling (Pty) Ltd vTerblanche (65745/2019)

SS Profiling (Pty) Ltd vTerblanche (65745/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 17 (25 January 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

65745/2019

Judge

E.M Kubushi

The High Court dismissed an opposed summary judgment application, finding the respondent’s special pleas bona fide and the pleadings exceptiable for failure to attach the agreement.

• Summary Judgment
• Locus Standi
• Jurisdiction
• Exceptio Vagueness
• Pleadings Requirements
• Summary-judgment