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
ABSA Bank Limited v Khambule (2019/003137) [2025] ZAGPJHC 426 (2 May 2025)
Summary judgment was granted to ABSA for an outstanding bond debt, and the bonded property was declared preferentially executable, with execution suspended until 1 August 2025.
Mthethwa v S (AR361/2022) [2025] ZAKZPHC 41 (2 May 2025)
The High Court found the appeal record incomplete and ordered transcription or reconstruction of missing proceedings before the appeal could continue.
Mmamoleboge Investment CC v Minister of the Department of Public Works of the Republic of South Africa and Others (5086/2016) [2024] ZALMPPHC 6 (17 January 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out or dismiss a claim, holding that incomplete replies to further particulars were adequate for trial preparation.
ABSA Bank Limited v Kapuda Properties 14 CC and Others (2019/16373) [2023] ZAGPJHC 262 (23 March 2023)
The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim are not excipiable for non-compliance with Uniform Rule 18(6), as the plaintiff provided secondary evidence of the contract after exhausting all reasonable steps to locate the original, which was destroyed in a fire. The court found that the particulars of claim are sufficiently clear and intelligible for the defendants to plead, and any minor deficiencies can be addressed through further particulars or at trial. The exceptions raised by the defendants were found to be technical and did not go to the root of the cause of action. The cou…
Source excerpt
Gammie N.O. and Others v Creative Counsel (PTY) Ltd and Another (20/44564) [2022] ZAGPJHC 792 (3 October 2022)
The High Court dismissed three exceptions to a claim over a lease addendum, notice of extension, and a delictual damages claim for property damage.
Silverstone and Another v Absa Bank Limited (66156/12) [2018] ZAGPPHC 321 (10 May 2018)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for their default, as no affidavit from the correspondent attorney was submitted and no formal complaint was lodged. The applicants' reliance on the absence of the original loan agreement and the excipiability of secondary evidence was rejected, as the substantive law allows for secondary evidence where the original contract is destroyed. The court held that the applicants' defences lacked merit and were raised solely to frustrate the respondent's claim. Accordingly, the application for rescission of…
Source excerpt
Oberholzer v Glocell (Pty) Ltd and Another (20338/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 415 (26 July 2017)
The High Court dismissed one exception to a claim for employment commission but upheld another, finding no legal nexus between the plaintiff and the first defendant.
Absa Bank Limited v Cholwich (2016/20145) [2017] ZAGPJHC 155 (20 June 2017)
The court held that the plaintiff's inability to attach the original signed loan agreement is not fatal to its claim for summary judgment. The signed mortgage bonds provide sufficient evidence of the defendant's indebtedness and liability, and secondary evidence is admissible where the original contract cannot be found despite a diligent search. The defendant failed to deny the conclusion or terms of the loan agreement, did not dispute the arrears, and did not allege any prejudice from the missing agreement. The defendant did not disclose any bona fide defence or material facts to resist summ…
Source excerpt
Absa Bank Ltd v ERF 5..... Extension 1 CC and Others (2014/24489) [2015] ZAGPJHC 59 (9 March 2015)
Summary judgment was granted for Absa on a mortgage loan default, with the property declared specially executable despite the missing original loan agreement.
ABSA Bank Ltd v Zalvest Twenty (Pty) Ltd and Another (00/0000) [2013] ZAWCHC 169; 2014 (2) SA 119 (WCC) (6 November 2013)
The court held that the defendants' exception was misconceived. Rule 18(6) requires annexing a copy of a written contract to pleadings only where it is possible to do so. Where the contract has been destroyed or lost and no copy can be found despite a diligent search, substantive law allows the plaintiff to prove the contract and its terms by secondary evidence. The inability to annex the contract does not deprive the plaintiff of its cause of action. The rules of court regulate procedure and cannot override substantive law. If condonation for non-compliance is required, it may be granted und…
Source excerpt
Explore more
