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
Rufuro N.O Executrix obo Estate Late Nyamutsahuni v Road Accident Fund (23457/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 751 (24 July 2025)
Default judgment in a Road Accident Fund claim was granted for past loss of earnings after the defendant’s late notice to defend was set aside as an abuse of process.
Weitz Viljoen and Associates Incorporated v Rising Dragon Consulting (Pty) Ltd t/a Antonie Consulting (14817/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 294 (14 July 2025)
The court found that the plaintiff's delay in delivering the Rule 30 application was minimal and adequately explained, with no prejudice to the defendant and significant prejudice to the plaintiff if condonation was refused. The Rule 30 application was interlocutory and not subject to the strict requirements of Rule 6(5). The defendant's delivery of a special plea, plea-over, and claim in reconvention prior to the determination of its exception constituted an irregular step under Rule 30, as the rules require a choice between delivering a plea or an exception, not both. The exception raised b…
Source excerpt
Ramapuputla v Estate Agency Affairs Board and Others (2020/47431) [2025] ZAGPPHC 633 (18 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 30 application challenging a Rule 49 request for reasons, holding that the request was not an irregular step and caused no prejudice.
Road Accident Fund v Mabela and Another (63050/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 383 (23 April 2025)
The applicant failed to comply with procedural rules and did not provide any substantive basis for impugning the default judgments or quantum amounts. The application for stay of execution was brought only after years of inactivity and repeated defaults, and the applicant did not participate in the proceedings or provide any explanation for its conduct. The court found that the interests of justice and access to courts require enforcement of the judgments, and that the applicant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process. No exceptional circumstances were shown to justify a stay of execution.…
Source excerpt
Moeketsi v Dikwena Chrome Proprietary Limited ta SAMANCOR (2023/009557) [2025] ZAGPJHC 311 (25 March 2025)
The High Court held that a replication filed after an exception was dismissed was timeous, dismissed the Rule 30 application, and refused condonation.
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.
West Dunes Properties 92 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Kruger N.O (046444/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 19 (10 January 2025)
The High Court granted condonation for a late Rule 30 notice but dismissed the Rule 30 application, holding that non-joinder is a substantive issue and no prejudice was shown.
Road Accident Fund v P.M.M obo R.M.M (18768/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1079 (31 October 2024)
The court found that the application for leave to appeal and the request for reasons were irregular steps, as a default judgment is not appealable until it becomes final and is not capable of rescission. The RAF failed to comply with the time limits set by Rule 49 and did not apply for condonation or extension of time. The court distinguished the RAF's reliance on Mogorosi, noting that in that case, condonation was sought and new evidence was at least mentioned in affidavits, whereas in the present case, the RAF's new information was not formally placed before the court. The court emphasized…
Source excerpt
Plandruk Dienste (Pty) Ltd t/a Businessprint v M M Metsing Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd (2023-052870) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1081 (29 October 2024)
The court held that Rule 18(1) of the Uniform Rules requires only the combined summons to be signed, not the particulars of claim annexed thereto. The particulars of claim, as an annexure, do not constitute a separate pleading and therefore do not require a signature. The combined summons in this case was properly signed, and there was no non-compliance with Rule 18(1). The applicant's reliance on previous case law was misplaced, as those judgments did not establish a binding requirement for the signature of particulars of claim as a separate document. Furthermore, the applicant failed to dem…
Source excerpt
Lotts v NMI Durban South Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Barons Belville (19455/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 268 (30 August 2024)
The court found that the dies non period under Rule 6(5)(b)(iii)(aa) does not apply to summary judgment applications, which are governed by Rule 32. The plaintiff failed to file the summary judgment application within the prescribed 15-day period after delivery of the plea, and did not provide a substantive application for condonation with reasons for the delay. The absence of such an application is fatal, regardless of whether the defendant suffered prejudice. Furthermore, the relief sought by the plaintiff, including the return of the vehicle, delivery of a replacement, and damages, is not…
Source excerpt
Explore more
