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
A.D obo O.M, L.D and C.D v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (EL 2440/2023) [2025] ZAECELLC 1 (21 January 2025)
High Court decision on amendment of pleadings and separation of issues under Rules 18 and 33, with costs awarded against the plaintiff.
Chard v Old Mutual Insurance Limited (A66/2017) [2025] ZAKZDHC 5 (17 January 2025)
The court found that the defendant's proposed amendment lacked sufficient particularity as required by Uniform Rule 18(4), failing to specify the material facts regarding the alleged refusal by the plaintiff to fund oil replacement. The amendment contradicted the defendant's existing pleadings and did not raise a triable issue. Granting the amendment would prejudice the plaintiff, who would be embarrassed and unable to respond adequately. The application was not mala fide, but the absence of necessary averments and the contradiction with prior pleadings rendered the amendment excipiable and i…
Source excerpt
Filtaquip (Pty) Ltd v Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd (2023/078878) [2024] ZAGPJHC 982 (27 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 30 application, exception and specific-performance bid over pleadings and pre-arbitration notice requirements.
Ford Motor Company of South Africa (Manufacturing) (Pty) Ltd v Omega Risk Solutions (Pty) Ltd [2023] ZAGPPHC 436; 34497/2020 (13 June 2023)
The High Court dismissed an exception to a plea and counterclaim, holding that missing attachment of a purchase order did not make the pleading vague or embarrassing.
Sunday Sun Newspaper and Others v Mokondelela (2018/46689) [2020] ZAGPJHC 104 (15 April 2020)
High Court Rule 30 application to set aside a defamation particulars of claim was dismissed. The court found proper notice, no procedural irregularity, and sufficient pleading detail.
Shones Automation (Pty) Limited v Smokey Mountain Trading 444 (Pty) Limited t/a Mechatronics (1554/2018) [2019] ZAECPEHC 2 (19 February 2019)
The court held that the plaintiff's proposed amended particulars of claim, although containing extraneous matter, do not prejudice the defendant's ability to assess the quantum of the claim or to plead thereto. The core of the plaintiff's claim is the amount invoiced by company E to the plaintiff, and the additional invoices and deductions are matters of evidence rather than pleading. The court found that the requirements of Rule 18(4) and Rule 18(10) were satisfied and that the defendant's objection could not be upheld. The amendment sought by the plaintiff was therefore granted.
Source excerpt
Figo Putso Construction CC v Lereko Mining Supplies (Pty) Ltd (32630/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 134 (12 March 2014)
The court upheld an exception for vague and embarrassing pleadings, struck out the particulars of claim, and granted leave to amend within 20 days.
Atlantis Corporate Travel (Pty) Ltd v Scharli (2012/9344) [2013] ZAGPJHC 26 (20 February 2013)
The court upheld an exception to a defamation claim because the particulars lacked enough date and recipient detail, making the pleading vague and embarrassing.
Aveng (Africa) Ltd v Varicor Six (Pty) Ltd t/a Sigma Consulting (1613/09) [2010] ZAECPEHC 12 (9 April 2010)
The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim did not provide sufficient detail regarding the remedial steps taken and the nature of the work performed to remedy the alleged defects. The breakdown of damages was not linked with adequate specificity to the alleged breaches, leaving the defendant unable to assess the quantum or the relevance of each item claimed. The court held that the summons was vague and embarrassing, as it failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 18(4) and did not enable the defendant to plead effectively. The exception was therefore upheld, and the plain…
Source excerpt
Explore more
