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
Smit v Sidepoint Trading In re Sidepoint Trading v Smit and Others (446/2017) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 73 (19 September 2022)
The High Court upheld an exception to particulars of claim for defective pleading under Rule 18(6), vagueness, and failure to disclose a cause of action.
Desert Oil (Pty) Ltd v Griekwaland Wes Korporatief BPK t/a Vaalrivier Dienstasie (1193/2020) [2021] ZANCHC 59 (5 November 2021)
The High Court refused leave to amend a plea and counterclaim because the proposed tacit-contract pleading was vague, unsupported, and non-compliant with Rule 18(6).
Sambit Holdings (Proprietary) Limited v Marais and Another (90194/2015) [2021] ZAGPPHC 206 (8 April 2021)
The High Court refused leave to appeal against dismissal of an amendment application, finding no reasonable prospect of success and no special circumstances.
Adcock Ingram Critical Care Propriety Limited v Tiagen Industrial Proprietary Limited (3900/2018) [2019] ZAECPEHC 9 (12 February 2019)
The court held that the plaintiff's verifying affidavit did not comply with Rule 32(2) as it failed to state 'in his opinion' that there was no bona fide defence and that the notice of intention to defend was for delay. This non-compliance was deemed fatal to the summary judgment application, as compliance with Rule 32(2) is substantive and not a mere technicality. Even if the court were mistaken on this preliminary issue, the plaintiff's particulars of claim failed to comply with Rule 18(6) by not specifying whether the contract was oral, written, or partly both, nor the terms and circumstan…
Source excerpt
Charioteer Investor 2 CC t/a Ballid Protection Services CC v Electrical Power Systems CC (9244/2014) [2016] ZAKZPHC 83 (31 August 2016)
The court dismissed the defendant’s exception as late and irregular, and held that the particulars of claim were not vague or embarrassing under rule 18(6).
Explore more
