South Africa Case Law

Geeco Investments (PTY) LTD v Gourmet Cape Distributors (PTY) LTD (11008/2019)

Geeco Investments (PTY) LTD v Gourmet Cape Distributors (PTY) LTD (11008/2019) [2022] ZAWCHC 240 (25 November 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11008/2019

Judge

J Cloete

The court held that the applicant's attempt to amend its notice of motion and supplement its founding affidavit was procedurally impermissible following the referral of the matter to trial and the granting of absolution from the instance. The notice of motion had become a simple summons, which is not a pleading and cannot be amended in the manner sought. The correct procedure would be for the applicant to apply for leave to reopen its case and then seek to amend its declaration. The application was also premature as the applicant had not sought such leave. The court found no prejudice to the…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Absolution From The Instance
• Referral To Trial
• Simple Summons
• Reopening Case

Phofung Project Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Standard Bank Of South Africa Ltd (A232/2017)

Phofung Project Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Standard Bank Of South Africa Ltd (A232/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 21 (8 March 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A232/2017

Judges

DAFFUE, RAMPAI

The appeal succeeded because the summary judgment application was materially defective. The respondent failed to attach the written agreements forming the basis of its claims to the simple summons, resulting in the summons not disclosing a cause of action. The verifying affidavit could not cure this defect, and the respondent's reliance on Maharaj v Barclays National Bank Ltd was misplaced. Additionally, the claim against the surety was vague and embarrassing due to inconsistencies in the dates and documents referenced. The court a quo erred by focusing on the appellants' alleged technical de…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Simple Summons
• Verification Of Cause Of Action
• Attachment Of Documents
• Suretyship
• Costs Orders

Absa Bank Limited v Metropolitan Construction & Site Managing Consultants CC and Another (1143/2017)

Absa Bank Limited v Metropolitan Construction & Site Managing Consultants CC and Another (1143/2017) [2017] ZAWCHC 168 (23 May 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1143/2017

Judge

Kusevitsky

The court found that the plaintiff's summons contained sufficient allegations to sustain a cause of action, as it referenced and annexed the relevant agreements upon which the claim was based. The defendants' technical defence regarding the failure to annex written notices of breach and letters of demand was rejected, as these documents were not the foundation of the plaintiff's cause of action but rather procedural steps flowing from the agreement. The defendants did not dispute the debt or the agreements, nor did they allege prejudice or deny receipt of notices. The court held that a simple…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Simple Summons
• Excipiability
• Contractual Breach
• Suretyship
• Liquidated Demand

Absa Bank Limited v HRM Concrete CC and Others (4498/2016)

Absa Bank Limited v HRM Concrete CC and Others (4498/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1229 (2 July 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

4498/2016

Judge

E M Kubushi

High Court dismissal of a summary judgment application after the defendant successfully raised a technical objection that the simple summons was not sufficiently particularised.

• Summary Judgment
• Uniform Rule 32
• Simple Summons
• Suretyship
• Certificate Of Balance
• Summary-judgment

Absa bank Ltd v Phenyo General Supply CC + 1 (45466/12)

Absa bank Ltd v Phenyo General Supply CC + 1 (45466/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 286 (11 October 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

45466/12

Judge

Hassim A

High Court Rule 30(1) application concerning whether a summons was simple or combined, and whether a declaration could be filed.

• Irregular Step
• Simple Summons
• Combined Summons
• Pleadings
• Declaration Filing
• Civil-procedure

ABSA Bank Ltd v Studdard and Another (2011/24206)

ABSA Bank Ltd v Studdard and Another (2011/24206) [2012] ZAGPJHC 26 (13 March 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2011/24206

Judge

W L Wepener

The court held that a simple summons seeking default judgment on a loan claim must attach the written loan agreement and mortgage bond.

• Default Judgment
• Simple Summons
• Attachment Of Documents
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Cause Of Action Pleading
• Rule 17 2 B Requirements

CTP Limited t/a Plasticwrap v Osmans Spice Works CC (15232/2007)

CTP Limited t/a Plasticwrap v Osmans Spice Works CC (15232/2007) [2008] ZAKZHC 105 (20 June 2008)

Court

High Courts - Kwazulu Natal

Case number

15232/2007

Judge

Msimang

The court held that a simple summons for a debt or liquidated demand need not comply with Rule 18, but must set out the claim with sufficient clarity. The defendant's affidavit failed to address material allegations regarding invoices and payment and was vague regarding the waybill. The submissions were not sufficiently detailed to constitute a bona fide defence. The defendant's resistance based on non-compliance with Rule 18 failed, and the affidavit did not meet the requirements of Rule 32(3)(b). Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Simple Summons
• Rule 17
• Rule 18
• Rule 32
• Bona Fide Defence