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
Engelbrecht v Attooh Consulting Services Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (31915/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 732 (23 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an unopposed costs application, holding that Rule 28(9) already regulates costs for a notice of intention to amend.
Gidigidi obo M.B. v Road Accident Fund (22118/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 190 (14 February 2025)
High Court RAF damages case awarding R7.7 million for future loss of earnings after a minor’s accident-related injuries permanently reduced earning capacity.
BMW Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Doola (2021-39269) [2025] ZAGPPHC 36; [2025] 2 All SA 107 (GP) (20 January 2025)
The High Court held that a rule 28(1) notice of intention to amend is not an irregular step under rule 30(1) and dismissed the application with costs.
Standard Bank of South Limited v 24 Wentworth Village (Pty) Ltd and Others (2012/47752) (16311/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 90 (4 January 2025)
The High Court granted Standard Bank leave to amend its particulars of claim in a foreclosure matter, rejecting objections that the amendment was vague or prejudicial.
Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank v Trustees for the Time Being of the Lona Venter Familie Trust and Others (7478/2020) [2024] ZALMPPHC 195 (22 November 2024)
The High Court granted leave to amend particulars of claim under Rule 28, holding the amendments were not mala fide and did not revive a prescribed claim.
Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank v Trustees for the Time Being of Lona Venter Familie Trust and Others (7480/2020) [2024] ZALMPPHC 192 (22 November 2024)
The High Court granted Firstrand Bank leave to amend particulars of claim in a Rule 28 application, rejecting objections that the amendments were mala fide or prescribed.
South Africa Municipal Workers Union v Mahlomoyane and Other (2023/014975) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1175 (12 November 2024)
The court held that the late filing of amended pages under Rule 28(5) does not render the amendment a nullity, but may be considered irregular. However, the applicant failed to seek the setting aside of the amended pages and did not demonstrate any substantive prejudice resulting from the alleged irregularity. The application to set aside the notice of bar was therefore dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to deliver its plea within five days and pay the costs of the application. The court emphasized that procedural rules should not be rigidly enforced to the detriment of justice and the…
Source excerpt
Qhamakoane v Road Accident Fund (19131/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 795 (12 August 2024)
The court granted a late amendment increasing quantum, held that an ipso facto barred defendant may plead to amended particulars, and postponed default judgment.
Road Accident Fund v Izaakse N.O (13350/14) [2024] ZAGPPHC 796 (6 August 2024)
The court found that the Road Accident Fund failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for its default, as the notice of set down was properly served on its attorneys and the claims handler. The amendment of the quantum was effected in accordance with Rule 28(10), and the RAF had access to all relevant documents prior to trial. The RAF did not demonstrate a bona fide defence on the merits, as the existence of pre-existing injuries was not supported by expert evidence and did not constitute a defence. The judgment was not erroneously obtained, and Rule 42(1)(a) did not apply. Th…
Source excerpt
De Wet v BMW Financial Services (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (21807/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 725 (31 July 2024)
The court held that the order by Maritz AJ was clear and unambiguous in granting the plaintiff leave to file amended particulars of claim within 20 days. This dispensed with the need for a Rule 28(1) notice, as the leave to amend was already granted by the court. The procedural requirements of Rule 28 do not apply where the court has specifically authorized the amendment. The applicant's reliance on Rule 28 was misplaced, and the application under Rule 30 was dismissed. The court further noted that substantive objections to the amended particulars should be raised by way of exception or plea,…
Source excerpt
Explore more
