South Africa Case Law

Selogilwe Building Contractors CC v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs: North-West and Another (1296/2018)

Selogilwe Building Contractors CC v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs: North-West and Another (1296/2018) [2025] ZANWHC 84 (13 May 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1296/2018

Judge

Mfenyana

The High Court dismissed an application to lift the bar and condone a very late replication, finding no good cause, weak explanations, and prejudice to the respondents.

• Condonation
• Late Filing
• Upliftment Of Bar
• Replication
• Rule 25
• Rule 32

Tom Campher Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Tom Campher Volvo Cars, Johannesburg v Andre (Reasons) (1697/2024)

Tom Campher Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Tom Campher Volvo Cars, Johannesburg v Andre (Reasons) (1697/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 75 (17 December 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1697/2024

Judge

O H Ronaasen

The High Court granted summary judgment where the defendant failed to file a complying affidavit opposing the application and relied instead on a notice to amend.

• Summary Judgment
• Rule 32
• Pleading Amendment
• Condonation
• Affidavit Evidence
• Summary-judgment

Van Wyk Rautenbach v South Africa Sceuritation Programme Rf Ltd (45850/2023)

Van Wyk Rautenbach v South Africa Sceuritation Programme Rf Ltd (45850/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1103 (29 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

45850/2023

Judge

N. S. Krüger

The High Court dismissed leave to appeal against summary judgment, finding no reasonable prospects of success on Rule 32, certificate of balance, or legibility objections.

• Summary Judgment
• Rule 32
• Guarantee Liability
• Certificate Of Balance
• Leave To Appeal
• Superior Courts Act

ACDC Dynamics (Pty) Ltd v Elucidation Pro (Pty) Ltd (2022/032799)

ACDC Dynamics (Pty) Ltd v Elucidation Pro (Pty) Ltd (2022/032799) [2024] ZAGPPHC 963 (2 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/032799

Judge

Van der Merwe

Summary judgment was granted on a commercial debt claim after the court rejected objections based on personal knowledge, non-joinder, and prescription.

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Certificate Of Balance
• Non Joinder
• Prescription
• Rule 32

Plus 94 Research (Pty) Ltd v N.U and Another (2023-115047)

Plus 94 Research (Pty) Ltd v N.U and Another (2023-115047) [2024] ZAGPPHC 573 (19 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-115047

Judge

Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen

The court held that the filing of a notice of intention to amend the plea, where the period for objection under rule 28(2) has not expired, bars the hearing of the summary judgment application. This is because the amendment process must be completed to ensure procedural fairness and to allow the plaintiff to address any new defences raised. The plaintiff may, after the amendment process is exhausted, file a supplementary affidavit and set the summary judgment application down for hearing. The wasted costs occasioned by the postponement are to be borne by the respondents, as the delay was caus…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Rule 28
• Rule 32
• Wasted Costs

Liberty Group Limited and Others v S Surtee Esquire (Pty) Ltd t/a Grays and Others (003603/2023)

Liberty Group Limited and Others v S Surtee Esquire (Pty) Ltd t/a Grays and Others (003603/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 751 (31 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

003603/2023

Judge

T Bokako

The applicants failed to comply with the peremptory requirements of Rule 32(2) and (3) by not verifying the cause of action, the amount claimed, and by not attaching the relevant annexures to the particulars of claim. The respondents raised bona fide triable issues regarding the validity of the suretyship agreements and the quantum of the claim. The court found that the applicants did not make out an unanswerable case and that the respondents are entitled to have these issues properly ventilated at trial. Summary judgment is a stringent remedy requiring strict compliance with procedural rules…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Lease Agreement
• Rule 32
• Business Rescue
• Quantum Of Damages

Pinase and Associates CC v Department of Health Free State and Others (4112/2020)

Pinase and Associates CC v Department of Health Free State and Others (4112/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 331 (18 August 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4112/2020

Judge

Reinders

Summary judgment was refused where the claim was found to be for damages, not a liquidated amount, and the defendants raised triable defences.

• Summary Judgment
• Liquidated Damages
• Public Procurement
• Rule 32
• Contractual Liability
• Summary-judgment

SA Taxi Development (Pty) Ltd v Johnson (2021/0031)

SA Taxi Development (Pty) Ltd v Johnson (2021/0031) [2023] ZAGPJHC 845 (28 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/0031

Judge

WJ Du Plessis

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with Rule 32(2)(b) by not filing a supplementary affidavit addressing the defendant's amended pleas and new special defences. The absence of such an affidavit meant the court could not properly assess whether the defendant's opposition was bona fide or merely a delaying tactic. The court emphasized that strict compliance with the procedural requirements for summary judgment is necessary, especially when new defences are raised after the application is filed. As a result, the application for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendant w…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Rule 32
• Pleading Amendment
• Jurisdiction
• Reckless Credit
• Locus Standi

Ridge Line Roofing CC v Devan 01 (Pty) Ltd and Another (37618/2021)

Ridge Line Roofing CC v Devan 01 (Pty) Ltd and Another (37618/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 278 (29 April 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37618/2021

Judge

N Davis

Summary judgment was granted where the defendants failed to disclose a bona fide defence to the plaintiff’s claim for payment, interest and costs.

• Summary Judgment
• Rule 32
• Suretyship
• Incidental Credit Agreement
• Quantum Of Claim
• Summary-judgment

Nyathela and Another v National Arts Council of South Africa and Another (14562/2018)

Nyathela and Another v National Arts Council of South Africa and Another (14562/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 285 (29 April 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

14562/2018

Judge

Manoim

The court found that the order was not granted erroneously, as the applicants were properly served with notice of the set down and their absence was due to an error by their attorneys. Rule 42 was therefore inapplicable. Under Rule 32 and the common law, the applicants failed to establish a bona fide defence to the defamation claim. Their allegations against the respondents had been investigated by independent firms and found to be baseless, and the applicants did not provide any factual justification for their statements. The court held that the applicants' criticisms of the investigations w…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Defamation
• Bona Fide Defence
• Rule 42
• Rule 32
• Truth In Public Benefit