Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Trackers Series (Pty) Ltd v Oxygen Media (Pty) Limited and Others (2022/14668) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1085 (28 September 2023)
The High Court granted the defendants leave to amend their plea, holding the amendments were not shown to be mala fide or irremediably prejudicial.
Zwane v Sasol Technology and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 131; 91849/2015 (22 February 2023)
The High Court upheld an exception to an amended claim, finding it vague, embarrassing, and non-compliant with pleading rules, and set it aside as an irregular step.
University of Mpumalanga v Magma Masemola Attorneys Inc (1941/2018) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 10 (7 January 2021)
The High Court dismissed an exception to particulars of claim, holding that any vagueness did not strike at the heart of the cause of action.
Van Schalkwyk v Menlyn Corner Body Corporate and Others (59346/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1021 (12 December 2019)
The High Court granted condonation for a nine-day late amendment after an exception was upheld, and ordered the applicant’s attorney to pay wasted costs.
Compensation Solutions (PTY) Limited v Compensation Commissioner and Another (47268/18) [2019] ZAGPPHC 26 (26 February 2019)
The High Court refused summary judgment, finding the plaintiff’s pleadings lacked sufficient particularity and were not technically correct for Rule 18(4).
Rennies Travel (Pty) Limited v South African Municipal Workers Union (39030/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 17 (8 February 2018)
The court found that the defendant failed to disclose a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim, relying only on technical points in limine rather than substantive grounds. The plaintiff's affidavit in support of summary judgment was held to comply with Rule 32, as it sufficiently verified the cause of action. The summons was not defective under Rule 18(6), as the claim was for services rendered and supported by an account statement. The alleged non-compliance with the cancellation clause was irrelevant, as the claim was not based on the agreement but on services rendered. The defendant's…
Source excerpt
Windvogel v Minister of Police (3019/12) [2013] ZAECPEHC 32 (28 June 2013)
The High Court upheld exceptions to a police plea in an unlawful arrest case, finding paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5 vague, evasive, and unsupported by material facts.
Weld-Cut Equipment (Pty) Ltd v Anthony Forrester t/a Amgas Industrial Equipment (35615/09) [2011] ZAGPPHC 148 (6 May 2011)
Summary judgment was refused because the defendant raised a bona fide defence based on excipiability and lack of particularity in the plaintiff’s pleadings.
Bindco (Pty) Limited and Others v Technologies Acceptances (Pty) Ltd (40187/2009) [2010] ZAGPPHC 196 (19 October 2010)
The High Court found that the summons and particulars of claim amounted to a combined summons, and set aside the plaintiff’s notice of bar as irregular.
CTP Limited t/a Plasticwrap v Osmans Spice Works CC (15232/2007) [2008] ZAKZHC 105 (20 June 2008)
The court held that a simple summons for a debt or liquidated demand need not comply with Rule 18, but must set out the claim with sufficient clarity. The defendant's affidavit failed to address material allegations regarding invoices and payment and was vague regarding the waybill. The submissions were not sufficiently detailed to constitute a bona fide defence. The defendant's resistance based on non-compliance with Rule 18 failed, and the affidavit did not meet the requirements of Rule 32(3)(b). Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Source excerpt
Explore more
