South Africa Case Law

Samsung Sds Global Scl South Africa Proprietary Limited v Rhenus Logistics Proprietary Limited (2023/076450; 2023/079688)

Samsung Sds Global Scl South Africa Proprietary Limited v Rhenus Logistics Proprietary Limited (2023/076450; 2023/079688) [2025] ZAGPJHC 677 (18 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/076450; 2023/079688

Judge

Pearse AJ

The court found that Samsung SDS could not rely on section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act to stay its own action, as that statutory power is available only to defendants or third parties. However, the court's inherent jurisdiction under section 173 of the Constitution allows it to stay proceedings in the interests of justice. The initiation of the action by Samsung SDS did not amount to a repudiation or waiver of the arbitration agreement, given its clear intention to arbitrate and the precautionary nature of the action to interrupt prescription. The interests of justice, party autonomy, and con…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Proceedings
• Arbitration Agreement Enforcement
• Consolidation Of Actions
• Vicarious Liability
• Prescription Interruption
• Specific Performance

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Mojelo Hlazo Attorneys Incorporated and Another (2023/117389)

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Mojelo Hlazo Attorneys Incorporated and Another (2023/117389) [2024] ZAGPJHC 700 (22 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/117389

Judge

Marcus

The High Court dismissed the City of Johannesburg’s leave-to-appeal application, finding no reasonable prospects of overturning factual findings on prescription interruption.

• Prescription Interruption
• Acknowledgement Of Liability
• Partial Payment
• Motion Proceedings
• Leave To Appeal Test
• Leave-to-appeal

Du Toit and Others v Maartens N.O and Others (61215/2020)

Du Toit and Others v Maartens N.O and Others (61215/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 56 (26 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61215/2020

Judge

Makhoba

The court found that the second respondent is unable to pay its debts, as evidenced by its consent to a provisional winding-up order and its initiation of business rescue due to financial distress. The applicants are established as creditors, and the running of prescription was interrupted by both the business rescue proceedings and the provisional winding-up order. Attempts to settle also contributed to the interruption of prescription. The court is satisfied that the applicants' claims have not prescribed and that the requirements for a final winding-up order are met.

Source excerpt

• Company Liquidation
• Business Rescue
• Creditor Claims
• Prescription Interruption

Biologicals and Vaccines Institute of Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited (11323/2022)

Biologicals and Vaccines Institute of Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited (11323/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 729 (27 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

11323/2022

Judge

S D J Wilson

The High Court granted condonation for unsigned particulars of claim served in a fire-insurance dispute, finding a minor administrative error and no appreciable prejudice.

• Condonation
• Irregular Step
• Insurance Policy Time Bar
• Prescription Interruption
• Rule 18 Non Compliance
• Irregular-step

Julius v Namaqua Wines (Pty) Ltd and Another (5399 / 2012)

Julius v Namaqua Wines (Pty) Ltd and Another (5399 / 2012) [2023] ZAWCHC 98 (9 May 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5399 / 2012

Judge

Binns-Ward

The High Court postponed an amendment application because the company said to be the true debtor was not joined and had not been given notice.

• Amendment Of Summons
• Misjoinder
• Non Joinder
• Uniform Rule 28
• Prescription Interruption
• Civil-procedure

Investec Bank Limited v Abada (30528/2021)

Investec Bank Limited v Abada (30528/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 776 (20 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

30528/2021

Judge

de Vos

The High Court enforced a home loan and credit facility debt, dismissed technical defences, and declared the respondent’s primary residence specially executable.

• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• National Credit Act Compliance
• Primary Residence Execution
• Prescription Interruption
• Reserve Price Determination
• Primary-residence-execution

Investec Bank Limited v Abada (30528/2021)

Investec Bank Limited v Abada (30528/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 791 (18 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

30528/2021

Judge

de Vos

The High Court enforced a home loan and credit facility debt, rejected prescription and procedural defences, and declared the respondent’s primary residence specially executable.

• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• National Credit Act Compliance
• Primary Residence Execution
• Prescription Interruption
• Section 129 Notice
• Reserve Price Determination

Miya v Minister of Police and Another (29972/2019)

Miya v Minister of Police and Another (29972/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 596 (4 August 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29972/2019

Judge

Mazibuko

Although the summons was not served on the first defendant, the Minister of Police, the first defendant became aware of the summons and responded by filing relevant court processes and participating in pre-trial conferences. The purpose of service—to inform the defendant of the claim—was achieved, and no prejudice was suffered by the first defendant. The omission to serve the summons on the first defendant did not render the plaintiff's summons void, as the first defendant was aware of and responded to the claim. The court adopted a purposive approach, consistent with constitutional values an…

Source excerpt

• Service Of Process
• State Liability Act
• Prescription Interruption
• Malicious Prosecution
• Unlawful Arrest

Techmach Technology (Pty) Ltd v Grikwaland-Wes Korporatief Ltd (2950/2018)

Techmach Technology (Pty) Ltd v Grikwaland-Wes Korporatief Ltd (2950/2018) [2020] ZANCHC 55 (31 July 2020)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2950/2018

Judge

Phatshoane

The High Court allowed an amendment changing the defendant’s citation, finding a misdescription rather than an impermissible substitution, and held prescription was interrupted.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Misdescription Of Party
• Prescription Interruption
• Contractual Debt
• Amendment-of-pleadings
• Misdescription-of-party

Van der Merwe v Odendaal (4712/18)

Van der Merwe v Odendaal (4712/18) [2020] ZAMPMHC 21 (2 July 2020)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

4712/18

Judge

Brauckmann

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the eight-month delay in launching his Rule 30 application, which was required to be brought within fifteen days after the expiry of the period for remedying the irregularity. The applicant did not demonstrate bona fides or any prejudice suffered due to the respondent's irregular step. The respondent's non-compliance with Rule 18(1) was held to be an irregularity, not a nullity, and could be condoned. The respondent showed good cause for condonation, as refusal would result in prescription of her claim and sub…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Irregular Step
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Right Of Appearance
• Prescription Interruption