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
Disipi v Member of the Executive Council for Health : Northern Cape Province (183/2023 ; 182/2023) [2024] ZANCHC 117 (13 December 2024)
The High Court set aside two particulars of claim for failing to comply with Rule 18(4) and (10), and ordered amendment within 20 days.
Pillay v Mercantile Bank (10310/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1284 (13 December 2024)
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with Rule 18(6) by not attaching the contract upon which its locus standi is based. The particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing, as they do not provide sufficient detail regarding the acquisition of rights from Mercantile Bank, leaving uncertainty as to whether the respondent is entitled to enforce the loan agreement. This omission prejudices the applicant, who cannot properly plead to the claim. The preliminary issue regarding the timing of the notice to except was dismissed, as the applicant responded within the period allowed by…
Source excerpt
Zoetendal Vineyards (Pty) Ltd v Aquest Colsen (Pty) Ltd (708/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 55 (1 October 2024)
The High Court partly upheld an exception to particulars of claim, finding the pleaded contractual milestones too vague and embarrassing, and allowed amendment.
Mtwazi v MEC for Education and Others (472/2020) [2023] ZAECBHC 37 (5 December 2023)
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
Kubupay (Pty) Ltd v Mayibuye Transport Corporation (EL1203/2022) [2023] ZAECELLC 21 (27 July 2023)
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
Mncube v Toyota Financial Services South Africa Limited (49008/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 879 (16 November 2022)
The High Court dismissed an exception arguing that jurisdiction had not been pleaded, finding the omission technical and non-prejudicial.
Letseng v Car Care Clinic Bloemfontein (4090/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 247 (17 June 2022)
The court dismissed competing Rule 30 applications, holding the combined summons sufficiently complied with Rule 18(1) and rejecting the alleged irregularity.
Fourie N.O and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (1425/2020;1426/2020;1427/2020;1428/2020) [2022] ZANCHC 20 (8 April 2022)
The court found that there was substantial compliance with Rule 18(1) as the attorneys who signed the Particulars of Claim possessed the requisite rights of appearance, and any confusion was cured by explanation in the answering affidavit. However, the respondent failed to comply with Rule 18(6) by not annexing the actual written contract of cession or relevant extracts to the Particulars of Claim, which is a mandatory requirement when the contract forms a link in the chain of the cause of action. The annexed 'RECORDAL' document did not satisfy this requirement. The respondent's application f…
Source excerpt
Phanto Props (Pty) Ltd v La Concorde Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (7212/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 249 (10 November 2021)
The High Court partly refused leave to amend particulars of claim, finding the proposed damages pleading insufficiently particular under Uniform Rule 18(10).
ABM College SA (Pty) Ltd and Another v Media 24 Holdings (Pty) Ltd (4215/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 402 (26 August 2021)
The High Court struck out defamation pleadings that attributed unsupported secondary meanings to a newspaper article about unaccredited colleges.
Explore more
