South Africa Case Law

Lifestyle Hospitality CC v Vesperdene Mews Body Corporate (3644/22)

Lifestyle Hospitality CC v Vesperdene Mews Body Corporate (3644/22) [2025] ZAWCHC 332 (5 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3644/22

Judge

Bosch

The court found that the issues raised by the special pleas of prescription and settlement are not sufficiently discrete from the merits of the main action. There is a substantial risk of overlapping evidence, duplication, and potential delays, especially given the ongoing nature of the alleged nuisance and the possibility of appeals. The evidence required for the special pleas would likely be relevant to the merits, and separating them would not result in significant savings of time or costs. The court exercised its discretion to refuse the separation, concluding that it would not be conveni…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Issues
• Rule 33 4
• Prescription
• Settlement Agreement
• Standing
• Nuisance

Stoffel v RAF (301/2019)

Stoffel v RAF (301/2019) [2025] ZAFSHC 202 (30 June 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

301/2019

Judge

Mpama AJ

The court held the Road Accident Fund 100% liable for a minor passenger’s proven damages and awarded R3,839,957 for future loss of income.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Loss Of Income
• Future Medical Expenses
• Contingency Deductions
• Separation Of Issues
• Quantum Of Damages

Eskom Holding SOC Limited v Santam Limited and Another (2021/51709; 2023/104516)

Eskom Holding SOC Limited v Santam Limited and Another (2021/51709; 2023/104516) [2025] ZAGPJHC 725 (21 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/51709; 2023/104516

Judge

R. Strydom

The High Court granted separation of issues, directing that prescription, time bar, and invalid payment certificate special pleas be heard separately.

• Separation Of Issues
• Special Plea Prescription
• Special Plea Time Bar
• Invalid Payment Certificate
• Contractual Interpretation
• Separation-of-issues

Catalina Invstments (Pty) Ltd v Government Pension Administration Agency (A2024/084497)

Catalina Invstments (Pty) Ltd v Government Pension Administration Agency (A2024/084497) [2025] ZAGPJHC 565 (11 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2024/084497

Judges

Reid, Cowen, Wilson

The High Court held that termination of Catalina’s panel membership did not repudiate the service level agreement, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

• Contractual Interpretation
• Repudiation
• Separation Of Issues
• Business Efficacy
• Costs Award
• Contractual-interpretation

Anirudhra v Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University (38965/2019)

Anirudhra v Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University (38965/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 559 (26 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

38965/2019

Judge

HF Oosthuizen

The court found that the issues raised in the defendant's special plea of misjoinder are discrete and can be conveniently separated from the other issues in the action. There is no overlap of evidence between the conclusion of the incorporation agreement and the merits of the plaintiff's claim, which occurred years before the agreement and at a different institution. The plea of issue estoppel does not answer the special plea, as the prior judgment did not adjudicate the special plea and the defendant was not a party to the earlier proceedings. The court held that it is convenient for the spe…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Issues
• Misjoinder
• Issue Estoppel
• Contractual Damages

Gordon v Dickson and Others (2023/022277)

Gordon v Dickson and Others (2023/022277) [2025] ZAGPJHC 505 (26 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/022277

Judge

Dlamini

The High Court dismissed a Rule 33(4) separation application but granted discovery, holding the valuation issues were not suitably separable from the main claim.

• Discovery Application
• Separation Of Issues
• Settlement Agreement
• Share Valuation
• Rule 33 4
• Rule 35

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Raubex Construction (Pty) Ltd (117558/2023)

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Raubex Construction (Pty) Ltd (117558/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 511 (23 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

117558/2023

Judge

Nharmuravate

The court dismissed PRASA’s interlocutory strike-out application for procedural defects, finding the notice vague and the rules relied on were not properly invoked.

• Striking Out Affidavit Matter
• Rule 30 And 30a Irregular Steps
• Rule 23 2 Procedure
• Rule 6 11 And 6 15 Striking Out
• Separation Of Issues
• Costs In Interlocutory Applications

Vinger v Road Accident (5906/2021)

Vinger v Road Accident (5906/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 137 (16 May 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5906/2021

Judge

Buys AJ

High Court road accident damages case awarding loss of earnings and a future medical expenses undertaking; general damages were separated.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Loss Of Earning Capacity
• Future Medical Expenses
• Contingency Deductions
• Separation Of Issues
• Quantification Of Damages

A.K v R.N (D6036/2023)

A.K v R.N (D6036/2023) [2025] ZAKZDHC 15 (30 April 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D6036/2023

Judge

Mossop

The High Court dismissed an application to separate divorce issues, holding the applicant had not shown the required convenience and that the respondent may be prejudiced.

• Divorce Act Section 7
• Uniform Rule 33 4
• Condonation
• Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage
• Maintenance
• Separation Of Issues

Parkin and Others v Knysna Local Municipality (5855/2020)

Parkin and Others v Knysna Local Municipality (5855/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 182; [2025] 3 All SA 530 (WCC) (29 April 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5855/2020

Judge

Holderness

The court found that the issues raised in the special pleas of non-joinder and misjoinder are not inextricably interwoven with the remaining issues for determination in the main action. The determination of which municipality bears the legal duties relied upon by the plaintiffs is a discrete legal question that can be conveniently separated and adjudicated first. The court held that if the defendant succeeds on its misjoinder plea, it will be dispositive of the plaintiffs’ claim against it. The court further found that the determination of non-joinder should precede the merits to avoid making…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Issues
• Non Joinder
• Misjoinder
• Municipal Liability
• Fire Damage
• Statutory Duties