South Africa Case Law

Maboni Projects (Pty) Ltd v Motheo Construction Group and Another (2023/023364)

Maboni Projects (Pty) Ltd v Motheo Construction Group and Another (2023/023364) [2025] ZAGPPHC 498 (16 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/023364

Judge

H F Jacobs

The court found that all the complaints raised by the first defendant in its notice of exception were valid. The plaintiff's particulars of claim were so vague and embarrassing that, if allowed to stand, they would make it impossible for a trial court to recognise the claim, regardless of the facts that might emerge at trial. The purpose of pleadings is to distil the dispute, and the plaintiff's particulars failed to meet this requirement. Accordingly, the exception was upheld, and the particulars of claim were struck out.

Source excerpt

• Exception To Pleadings
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Rule 30 Application

Shezi v Santam Limited (1109/2023)

Shezi v Santam Limited (1109/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 128 (8 May 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1109/2023

Judge

Mpama AJ

The court granted condonation, held the defendant’s dismissal application was an irregular step for lack of proper Rule 30A notice, and set it aside.

• Irregular Step
• Condonation
• Insurance Contract Dispute
• Rule 30 Application
• Late Filing
• Costs Order

Smit v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (010734/2023)

Smit v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (010734/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 309 (28 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

010734/2023

Judge

M.P. Motha

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with Rule 32(2)(c) of the Uniform Rules of Court by not stating a specific hearing date in its summary judgment application. The Practice Directive cannot override the Uniform Rules, and compliance with the Directive does not excuse non-compliance with the Rules. The omission constituted an irregular proceeding under Rule 30. The respondent is afforded 30 days to amend its notice to comply with Rule 32(2)(c). Costs are awarded on a party and party scale, and the request for costs de bonis propriis is rejected as unwarranted in the circumsta…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Practice Directives
• Irregular Proceedings
• Rule 30 Application

Hlatshwayo v Multichoice South Africa and Others (2021/27076)

Hlatshwayo v Multichoice South Africa and Others (2021/27076) [2025] ZAGPJHC 364 (28 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/27076

Judge

WJ du Plessis

The High Court upheld exceptions to defamation particulars that were vague and embarrassing, granted condonation for late filing, and dismissed a Rule 30 application.

• Defamation
• Actio Iniuriarum
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Special Damages
• Condonation
• Rule 30 Application

Absa Bank Ltd v Ndziba N.O and Others (13189/2014)

Absa Bank Ltd v Ndziba N.O and Others (13189/2014) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1174 (14 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

13189/2014

Judge

S. Potterill

The High Court refused condonation for Absa’s late declaration filing, held the earlier order struck out the respondents’ plea and special plea, and made no costs order.

• Condonation
• Striking Out Of Defence
• Late Filing Of Plea
• Rule 30 Application
• Rule-30
• Striking-out-defence

Mcunu v Road Accident Fund (37320/2022)

Mcunu v Road Accident Fund (37320/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 722 (22 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37320/2022

Judge

G Lubbe

The court found that the Defendant's late filing of the notice of intention to defend, without any substantive defence or evidence, constituted an abuse of process. The Defendant had ample opportunity and repeated invitations to present a defence or evidence but failed to do so. The Plaintiff's version of the accident was uncontested, supported by affidavits, accident reports, and photographic evidence. The quantum for loss of earnings was substantiated by actuarial reports and employment records, with appropriate contingency deductions. The Defendant's request for further time to investigate…

Source excerpt

• Rule 30 Application
• Default Judgment
• Road Accident Claim
• Loss Of Earnings
• Abuse Of Process

Copiso v Minister Correctional Services and Others (5364/2023)

Copiso v Minister Correctional Services and Others (5364/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 214 (18 July 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5364/2023

Judge

Molitsoane

The High Court dismissed a Rule 30 application to set aside particulars of claim as an irregular step, finding the defendants’ notice was late and procedurally defective.

• Irregular Step
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Rule 30 Application
• Rule 28 Amendment
• Condonation
• Costs Discretion

Smith v Sci Essel Offshore Services Limited (A740/2014)

Smith v Sci Essel Offshore Services Limited (A740/2014) [2024] ZAGPPHC 119 (15 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A740/2014

Judges

E van der Schyff, D Mahosi, N Davis

The High Court held that the appeal was irregularly enrolled because no power of attorney had been filed in compliance with Rule 7(2), and removed it from the roll with costs.

• Power Of Attorney
• Irregular Step
• Appeal Enrolment
• Rule 7 2 Compliance
• Rule 30 Application
• Civil-procedure

Mtwazi v MEC for Education and Others (472/2020)

Mtwazi v MEC for Education and Others (472/2020) [2023] ZAECBHC 37 (5 December 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

472/2020

Judge

T.V Norman

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

• Pleading Irregularity
• Rule 18 Compliance
• Rule 30 Application
• Cause Of Action
• Damages Pleading

Silosini v Democratic Alliance (2527 / 2022)

Silosini v Democratic Alliance (2527 / 2022) [2023] ZAMPMHC 31 (19 September 2023)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

2527 / 2022

Judge

TV Ratshibvumo

The High Court set aside a taxation notice and the resulting taxation, finding no clear costs order supported taxation. It also dismissed an exception and ordered de bonis propriis costs against the applicant’s attorney.

• Irregular Proceedings
• Taxation Of Costs
• Rule 30 Application
• Exception Procedure
• Party And Party Costs
• Civil-procedure