South Africa Case Law

M.S (nee R) v J.S (32041/2022)

M.S (nee R) v J.S (32041/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1109 (29 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

32041/2022

Judge

Amien

The court found that the main issue to be determined in the divorce action is the division of the matrimonial estate, and that separating the issue of the matrimonial property regime would not materially shorten the proceedings. Any evidence led in the interlocutory application would overlap with the main divorce action, and separation would only serve to delay the finalization of the matter. The court balanced the potential prejudice to both parties and concluded that substantial grounds for separation did not exist, nor would it be convenient or serve the interests of justice. Accordingly,…

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial Property Regime
• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues
• Postnuptial Agreement
• Accrual System
• Universal Partnership

Alteram Municipal Solution (Pty) Limited v EOH Mthombo (Pty) Limited (2020/22874)

Alteram Municipal Solution (Pty) Limited v EOH Mthombo (Pty) Limited (2020/22874) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1039 (4 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/22874

Judge

S C Mia

The High Court dismissed an application to separate issues under Rule 33(4), finding the amended plea and fraud allegations were too intertwined with the main action.

• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues
• Contract Termination
• Repudiation
• Attribution Of Knowledge
• Rule-33-4
• Separation-of-issues

RNT Management Services CC v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality and Another (3806/2020)

RNT Management Services CC v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality and Another (3806/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 460 (3 November 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3806/2020

Judge

P. J. Loubser

The High Court refused a late Rule 33(4) separation application, finding it would unfairly delay trial and prejudice the plaintiff. Costs were awarded against the defendants.

• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues
• Special Plea Non Compliance With Notice
• Arbitration Clause Enforcement
• Costs On Punitive Scale
• Rule-33-4-separation-of-issues
• Special-pleas

MEC for Public Works, Roads and Transport, Free State Province v Van der Merwe and Others In re: Van der Merwe v MEC for Public Works, Roads and Transport, Free State Province and Others (4617/2010)

MEC for Public Works, Roads and Transport, Free State Province v Van der Merwe and Others In re: Van der Merwe v MEC for Public Works, Roads and Transport, Free State Province and Others (4617/2010) [2022] ZAFSHC 315; [2023] 1 All SA 154 (FB) (31 October 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4617/2010

Judge

VAN ZYL

The court found that the disadvantages of separating the second special plea from the trial on quantum far outweigh any potential advantages. The issues raised by the special plea are not discrete but are inextricably linked to the determination of quantum, requiring overlapping and potentially duplicative evidence from experts and the Compensation Commissioner. Furthermore, the likelihood of dual appeals if the special plea is adjudicated separately would result in significant delay and increased costs, undermining the purpose of Rule 33(4), which is to facilitate the convenient and expediti…

Source excerpt

• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues
• Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
• Special Plea
• Quantum Of Damages
• Joinder Of Parties

Phatshoane Henney Attorneys and Another v Trollip (3683/2018)

Phatshoane Henney Attorneys and Another v Trollip (3683/2018) [2021] ZAFSHC 24 (12 February 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3683/2018

Judge

Opperman, J

Leave to appeal against refusal to separate prescription from liability and quantum was dismissed because the issues were intertwined and separation would be inconvenient.

• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues
• Prescription Act
• Leave To Appeal
• Appealability
• Quantum Of Damages
• Rule-33-4-separation-of-issues

Phatshoane Henney Attorneys and Another v Trollip, In Re Trollip v Phatshoane Henney Attorneys and Another (3683/2018)

Phatshoane Henney Attorneys and Another v Trollip, In Re Trollip v Phatshoane Henney Attorneys and Another (3683/2018) [2020] ZAFSHC 227 (1 December 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3683/2018

Judge

Opperman, J

The court dismissed an application to separate a prescription special plea from liability and quantum under Rule 33(4), finding the issues were too closely linked.

• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues
• Prescription Special Plea
• Negligence Of Attorneys
• Road Accident Fund Claims
• Rule-33-4-separation-of-issues
• Prescription

Khutala Property Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Mtubatuba Municipality and Others (1299/2018)

Khutala Property Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Mtubatuba Municipality and Others (1299/2018) [2020] ZASCA 35 (6 April 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1299/2018

Judges

Navsa, Saldulker, Dambuza, Plasket, Ledwaba

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the municipal lease was invalid because the municipal manager lacked authority and MEC endorsement was not obtained.

• Municipal Tender Process
• Authority Of Municipal Manager
• Invalid Notarial Lease
• Principle Of Legality
• Role Of Mec In Municipal Decisions
• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues

SAP Societas Europaea (SAP) v Systems Applications Consultants (Pty) Ltd t/a Securinfo and Another (20378/2008)

SAP Societas Europaea (SAP) v Systems Applications Consultants (Pty) Ltd t/a Securinfo and Another (20378/2008) [2019] ZAGPJHC 241 (1 August 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20378/2008

Judge

Tsoka

The High Court refused to separate a special plea on SAC’s locus standi, holding the issue was inseparable from the merits of whether SAC was a party to the SDA.

• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues
• Locus Standi
• Contractual Identity
• Special Plea
• Company Law
• Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet

Van der Westhuizen v Strombeck Pieterse Incorporated and Others (851/2017)

Van der Westhuizen v Strombeck Pieterse Incorporated and Others (851/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 25 (3 April 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

851/2017

Judge

N G Beshe

The High Court refused to separate a legal issue under Rule 33(4), holding that the question was tied to contract interpretation and should be heard with the main case.

• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues
• Contract Interpretation
• Debtor Creditor Relationship
• Mandate Liability
• Rule-33-4
• Separation-of-issues

Road Accident Fund v Abrahams (276/2017)

Road Accident Fund v Abrahams (276/2017) [2018] ZASCA 49; 2018 (5) SA 169 (SCA) (29 March 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

276/2017

Judges

Navsa, Lewis, Willis, Makgoka, Hughes

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a driver in a single-vehicle accident may claim under section 17 of the RAF Act where the owner’s negligence caused the injury.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Third Party Liability
• Single Vehicle Accident
• Negligence
• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues
• Road-accident-fund-act