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
Nedbank Ltd v Kanyane (2024-094818) [2025] ZAGPPHC 31 (23 January 2025)
The High Court postponed a summary judgment application, holding that the unrepresented defendant’s oral explanations did not satisfy Rule 32(3)(b).
Reef Caterers (Pty) Ltd v Vaal Christian School NPC (1645/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 349 (7 November 2024)
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to rely on allegations in its replication and annexures for the purposes of summary judgment, as the application was filed simultaneously with the replication and not as a subsequent procedural step. The defendant failed to disclose a bona fide defence, as its allegations of breach were not supported by contemporaneous correspondence or communications. The evidence showed that the defendant's inability to pay was due to its own financial constraints, not any breach by the plaintiff. The existence of a potential counterclaim did not preclude summa…
Source excerpt
King Price Insurance CO v Joubert (4083/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 147 (24 May 2024)
The High Court granted summary judgment for unpaid insurance premiums, rejecting a Rule 32 objection that there was no nexus between the plaintiff and the deponent.
Hardisty and Another v Noor and Others (6885/16) [2016] ZAWCHC 168 (24 October 2016)
The court found that the applicants improperly sought summary judgment for eviction under the PIE Act by adducing further evidence beyond the verifying affidavit, contrary to Rule 32(4). The inclusion of section 4(2) PIE Act papers constituted prohibited further evidence. The summary judgment procedure is not suitable for residential evictions under the PIE Act, which requires strict compliance with statutory notice and procedural safeguards. The application was therefore invalid and stood to be dismissed. The court also clarified that both action and application proceedings are permissible f…
Source excerpt
Standard Bank of South Africa v Molwantwa and Another (15043/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 108 (5 May 2011)
High Court refused summary judgment and allowed the respondents to defend, citing the need for caution before declaring their home executable.
All Good Things 149 CC v Wascon Siviel CC and Another (1116/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 68 (11 May 2006)
The court found that the defendants' affidavit, though lacking in detail, disclosed the nature and grounds of their defence and the essential material facts relied upon. The defence, if established at trial, would defeat the plaintiff's claim, as it alleges that the amounts claimed are for goods not ordered or delivered. The court held that this constitutes a bona fide defence under Rule 32, and therefore summary judgment must be refused. The court did not consider the separate defence relating to the second defendant's suretyship, as the main defence was sufficient to defeat the application.
Source excerpt
Explore more
