South Africa Case Law

CNN Development Engineers and Project Managers CC v Dr A.B. Xuma Municipality (1640/2019)

CNN Development Engineers and Project Managers CC v Dr A.B. Xuma Municipality (1640/2019) [2025] ZAECMKHC 23 (13 March 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1640/2019

Judge

M.S. Jolwana

The High Court dismissed an exception to particulars of claim, holding that annexed offer-and-acceptance documents were enough for the defendant to plead.

• Exception Procedure
• Municipal Contracts
• Rule 18 Pleading Requirements
• Municipal Finance Management Act
• Exception-procedure
• Municipal-contracts

Scorpion Legal Protection v Mahlaba (53273/2021)

Scorpion Legal Protection v Mahlaba (53273/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 909 (17 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

53273/2021

Judge

A Makume

The High Court set aside parts of a particulars of claim as irregular for non-compliance with Rule 18, finding the pleading vague, embarrassing, and insufficiently particularised.

• Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Rule 18 Pleading Requirements
• Exception Vs Irregularity
• Civil-procedure
• Rule-30

Odendaal Erasmus & Thulare Inc and Others v Special Investigation Unit (33867/2017)

Odendaal Erasmus & Thulare Inc and Others v Special Investigation Unit (33867/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 636 (23 August 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

33867/2017

Judge

D S Fourie

The High Court held that the SIU’s amended particulars of claim cured earlier pleading defects and were not vague or embarrassing, dismissing the strike-out application.

• Exception Procedure
• Rule 18 Pleading Requirements
• Fiduciary Duty
• Municipal Procurement
• Striking Out
• Absolution From Instance

Lamin8 Window Film CC v Custom Protection Products CC and Others (24675/2019)

Lamin8 Window Film CC v Custom Protection Products CC and Others (24675/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 80 (10 February 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24675/2019

Judge

JF Mullins

The High Court dismissed an exception to a counterclaim based on alleged misrepresentation, holding the pleading disclosed a cause of action and was not vague or embarrassing.

• Exception To Pleading
• Misrepresentation
• Quantification Of Damages
• Prescription Act
• Vagueness And Embarrassment
• Rule 18 Pleading Requirements

Ngovhela v Mbele and Another (23641/2019)

Ngovhela v Mbele and Another (23641/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 664 (18 November 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23641/2019

Judge

S D J Wilson

High Court dismissed an exception to medical-negligence particulars, holding the damage pleadings were sufficiently specific under Rule 18.

• Rule 18 Pleading Requirements
• Vague And Embarrassing Exception
• Quantification Of Damages
• Medical Negligence
• Rule-18-pleading-requirements
• Vague-and-embarrassing-exception

Minister of Police v Mqamelo (138/2017)

Minister of Police v Mqamelo (138/2017) [2019] ZAECGHC 61 (11 June 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

138/2017

Judge

Renqe

The court dismissed a rule 30 challenge to particulars of claim, holding that an Mthatha attorney could practice in the Eastern Cape Division and that the applicant had taken further steps.

• Right Of Appearance
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings
• Rule 18 Pleading Requirements
• Civil-procedure
• Rule-30

Absa Bank Limited v Meiring N.O. and Others (69860/2013)

Absa Bank Limited v Meiring N.O. and Others (69860/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 46 (3 February 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

69860/2013

Judge

Lebala

High Court application under rule 30A succeeded in part, with defendants ordered to rectify a defective plea and pay costs.

• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Rule 18 Pleading Requirements
• Rule 30 Irregular Steps
• Rule 30a Applications
• Civil-procedure
• Uniform-rules-of-court

Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa v Westside Trading 570 (Pty) Ltd and Others (23733/12)

Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa v Westside Trading 570 (Pty) Ltd and Others (23733/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 86 (28 February 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23733/12

Judge

BAM

The High Court dismissed an exception to amended particulars of claim, finding the pleadings sufficiently clear to let the excipients plead.

• Exception Procedure
• Suretyship Liability
• Acknowledgement Of Debt
• Rule 18 Pleading Requirements
• Exception-procedure
• Rule-18-pleading-requirements

South African National Roads Agency Ltd v Moodley and Others (1509/2010)

South African National Roads Agency Ltd v Moodley and Others (1509/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 132 (16 September 2010)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1509/2010

Judge

Mocumie

The court held that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim did not comply with the prescriptive requirements of Rule 18(10) because they lacked sufficient detail for the defendants to reasonably assess the quantum of damages. The claims for future medical expenses, past loss of income, and future loss of income were presented as mere estimates without itemisation or explanation of how the amounts were calculated. The court found that it was reasonably practicable for the plaintiffs to provide particulars regarding their previous or current work and earnings, and that such information was within…

Source excerpt

• Rule 18 Pleading Requirements
• Irregular Step
• Quantification Of Damages
• Personal Injury Claims