South Africa Case Law

Greeff v Scenic Route Trading 502 CC t/a Devco Group (In Liquidation) and Another (21846/2018)

Greeff v Scenic Route Trading 502 CC t/a Devco Group (In Liquidation) and Another (21846/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 334 (5 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21846/2018

Judge

Nkosi

High Court summary judgment application dismissed for non-compliance with Rule 32, including failure to annex the underlying agreements and lateness under the applicable rules.

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Liquid Document
• Rule 32 Compliance
• Procedural Irregularity
• Summary-judgment

DB Fine Chemicals (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sparta Pharmaceuticals CC (2022/26447)

DB Fine Chemicals (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sparta Pharmaceuticals CC (2022/26447) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1113 (5 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/26447

Judge

JW Scholtz

The court found that the defendant's obligation to file heads of argument was not contingent on receiving the practice note and index, and that uploading documents to CaseLines constituted proper service. The defendant's delay in filing heads was unjustified, warranting a punitive costs order. Regarding summary judgment, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 32(2)(b) by not engaging with the defendant's plea or explaining why the defence did not raise a triable issue. The technical error in the citation of the defendant did not prejudice the defendant and was cured by…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Pleading Amendment
• Costs Order
• Sale Of Goods
• Rule 32 Compliance

Guardrisk v Life Limited FML Life (Pty) Ltd and Another (9859/2020)

Guardrisk v Life Limited FML Life (Pty) Ltd and Another (9859/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 137 (15 February 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

9859/2020

Judge

S D J Wilson

The High Court refused summary judgment against a surety, finding the deponent lacked personal knowledge to exclude a rectification defence at this stage.

• Suretyship
• Rectification Of Contract
• Summary Judgment
• Rule 32 Compliance
• Misappropriation Of Premiums
• Summary-judgment

Wesbank , A Division of First Rand Bank Limited v Mathe (2140/2019)

Wesbank , A Division of First Rand Bank Limited v Mathe (2140/2019) [2020] ZANWHC 48 (10 September 2020)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

2140/2019

Judge

DJAJE T

The High Court dismissed Wesbank’s summary judgment application, finding the supporting affidavit did not comply with Rule 32 and lacked proper personal knowledge.

• Summary Judgment
• Affidavit Requirements
• Rule 32 Compliance
• Rei Vindicatio
• Summary-judgment
• Affidavit-requirements

First Rand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank v Twin Corner Construction and Projects 7 t/a Twilight Electrical Installations and Maintenance and Others (1178/2019;1179/2019;1180/2019;1192/2019 & 1193/2019)

First Rand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank v Twin Corner Construction and Projects 7 t/a Twilight Electrical Installations and Maintenance and Others (1178/2019;1179/2019;1180/2019;1192/2019 & 1193/2019) [2019] ZAECGHC 130 (12 December 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1178/2019;1179/2019;1180/2019;1192/2019;1193/2019

Judge

Rugunanan

The High Court dismissed five summary judgment applications because the supporting affidavit did not properly verify the amount claimed under Rule 32.

• Summary Judgment
• Instalment Sale Agreement
• Suretyship
• Verification Of Debt
• Rule 32 Compliance
• Summary-judgment

Adcock Ingram Critical Care Propriety Limited v Tiagen Industrial Proprietary Limited (3900/2018)

Adcock Ingram Critical Care Propriety Limited v Tiagen Industrial Proprietary Limited (3900/2018) [2019] ZAECPEHC 9 (12 February 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

3900/2018

Judge

G J Gajjar

The court held that the plaintiff's verifying affidavit did not comply with Rule 32(2) as it failed to state 'in his opinion' that there was no bona fide defence and that the notice of intention to defend was for delay. This non-compliance was deemed fatal to the summary judgment application, as compliance with Rule 32(2) is substantive and not a mere technicality. Even if the court were mistaken on this preliminary issue, the plaintiff's particulars of claim failed to comply with Rule 18(6) by not specifying whether the contract was oral, written, or partly both, nor the terms and circumstan…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Rule 32 Compliance
• Contract Pleading Requirements
• Rule 18 6
• Leave To Defend

Viljoen NO and Others v GWK Limited (2304/2017)

Viljoen NO and Others v GWK Limited (2304/2017) [2017] ZAECGHC 135 (28 November 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

2304/2017

Judge

NG Beshe

The High Court refused leave to appeal against summary judgment, finding no reasonable prospect of success and noting the applicants had not properly raised a defence.

• Summary Judgment
• Leave To Appeal
• Rule 32 Compliance
• Condonation Of Late Affidavit
• Summary-judgment
• Leave-to-appeal

Absa Bank Ltd v Future Indefinite Investments 201 (Pty) Ltd and Others (20266/2015)

Absa Bank Ltd v Future Indefinite Investments 201 (Pty) Ltd and Others (20266/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 118 (12 September 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20266/2015

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court found that the plaintiff's supporting affidavit failed to comply adequately with rule 32(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The affidavit was vague, did not specify which documents or data were considered, and did not confirm that the deponent had read the summons or particulars of claim. The court held that mere assertion of personal knowledge, without substantiation, is insufficient. While previous case law allows for affidavits based on electronic records, the deponent must identify the records with specificity and demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the facts. The court distingui…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Rule 32 Compliance
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Suretyship Liability

Standard Bank v RJC Topping (10617/2013)

Standard Bank v RJC Topping (10617/2013) [2013] ZAWCHC 205 (4 November 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10617/2013

Judge

Davis

The court found that the jurisdictional objection could not be determined without considering the merits, as the validity and applicability of the suretyship agreements were central to both jurisdiction and the substantive defence. The supporting affidavit by the plaintiff's manager was sufficient for Rule 32(2) compliance, as she had access to the relevant records and the cause of action was based on standard written contracts, not oral agreements requiring more detailed knowledge. The incomplete annexure of the suretyship agreement did not invalidate the claim, as only the relevant portion…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Power Of Attorney
• Jurisdiction
• Rule 32 Compliance