South Africa Case Law

Elkana Body Corporate v City of Johannesburg and Others (2023/115700)

Elkana Body Corporate v City of Johannesburg and Others (2023/115700) [2025] ZAGPJHC 520 (30 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/115700

Judge

Windell

The court held that the exception raised by the Johannesburg Roads Agency was without merit. Rule 13(8) expressly allows a third-party notice against a party already joined in the main action, and the fact that the plaintiff's claim is joint and several does not preclude a defendant from seeking contribution from another defendant. The third-party notice complied with Rule 13(2), as the nature and grounds of the claim were clearly pleaded. The procedural complaint regarding late filing was factually incorrect, as pleadings were still open at the time of service. The exception did not raise an…

Source excerpt

• Third Party Procedure
• Exceptions
• Rule 13 Uniform Rules
• Attorney And Client Costs

Palomino Plant SA (Pty) Ltd v Dust-A-Side (Pty) Ltd and Others (86576/2019)

Palomino Plant SA (Pty) Ltd v Dust-A-Side (Pty) Ltd and Others (86576/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 719 (16 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

86576/2019

Judge

A.C. Basson

High Court case on whether a third party can be joined as a joint wrongdoer in a contractual damages claim under Rule 13. The exception was upheld.

• Third Party Procedure
• Joint Wrongdoer Liability
• Breach Of Contract
• Apportionment Of Damages Act
• Vicarious Liability
• Contributory Negligence

Bonifacio and Another v Lombard Insurance Company (247/2023)

Bonifacio and Another v Lombard Insurance Company (247/2023) [2024] ZASCA 86 (4 June 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

247/2023

Judges

Ponnan, Nicholls, Matojane, Koen, Seegobin

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants were liable to indemnify the respondent for the payment made under the performance guarantee. The guarantee was autonomous and created an obligation to pay upon demand, irrespective of disputes in the underlying contract. The indemnity contract entitled the respondent to settle DBT's claim and seek indemnification from the appellants, and the settlement did not deprive the appellants of any procedural rights, as they failed to exercise those rights when available. The liability under the indemnity was not conditional upon a court finding ag…

Source excerpt

• Performance Guarantee
• Indemnity
• Third Party Procedure
• Settlement Agreement
• Fraud Defence

MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings (SOC) Limited and Another (919/2020; 926/2020)

MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings (SOC) Limited and Another (919/2020; 926/2020) [2023] ZAECQBHC 50 (5 September 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

919/2020; 926/2020

Judge

O H Ronaasen

The court found that Eskom's reliance on the Apportionment of Damages Act was misplaced because the two fires constituted separate loss-causing events, each with distinct instances of negligence and damage. Therefore, Eskom and the municipality are not joint wrongdoers for purposes of the Act, and the Act does not apply. Eskom's proposed amendment to its third party annexure did not cure the defects identified in the earlier judgment and failed to disclose facts necessary to sustain a claim against the municipality. In the Woodridge action, the relief sought by Eskom under rule 13 was not com…

Source excerpt

• Apportionment Of Damages Act
• Joinder Of Parties
• Third Party Procedure
• Exception To Pleading
• Negligence
• Multiplicity Of Actions

Bitumproof (Pty) Ltd v AJP Management Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Others (2021/592036)

Bitumproof (Pty) Ltd v AJP Management Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Others (2021/592036) [2023] ZAGPJHC 999 (21 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/592036

Judge

A Friedman

The High Court struck out irregular third-party notices, counterclaims, and a notice of intention to defend filed under rule 13, and ordered costs against the defendant.

• Third Party Procedure
• Irregular Step
• Rule 13
• Counterclaims
• Joinder Of Parties
• Costs Orders

Highpoint Manufacturing (Pty) Limited v Emerson Assets Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (3963/2021)

Highpoint Manufacturing (Pty) Limited v Emerson Assets Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (3963/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 28 (6 February 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3963/2021

Judge

Mhlambi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not issuing the third-party notice before the close of pleadings. The applicant was aware of the third respondent's involvement and the alleged defects well before the relevant dates, as evidenced by correspondence and meetings. The explanation that knowledge of the factory fault only arose after discovery was found to be contradictory and false. Furthermore, the warranty relied upon by the applicant had expired, and any claim based on it was time-barred. On a conspectus of all the evidence and facts, the appl…

Source excerpt

• Third Party Procedure
• Indemnification
• Prescription Act
• Warranty Liability
• Joinder
• Delay In Application

BMW Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mpane (91617/2019)

BMW Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mpane (91617/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 743 (11 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

91617/2019

Judge

Nichols AJ

The court postponed a summary judgment application after finding the parties were prejudiced by incorrect notice and procedural irregularities.

• Summary Judgment
• Credit Agreement
• Notice Of Set Down
• Third Party Procedure
• Indemnity
• Misjoinder

Prime Trade Finance (RF) (PTY) Ltd v Delport and Another (10839/2019)

Prime Trade Finance (RF) (PTY) Ltd v Delport and Another (10839/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 449 (28 June 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

10839/2019

Judge

Siwendu

The court found that Delport failed to provide a satisfactory and verified explanation for the delay in filing the third party notice, as the events cited occurred after the relevant period and were not independently confirmed. Delport did not make out a prima facie case for contribution or indemnity against Gush, as the basis for such claims was not substantiated in contract, statute, or law. The third party notice was excipiable and did not disclose a cause of action. The application to strike out the 'without prejudice' correspondence failed because the letter contained a threat of litigat…

Source excerpt

• Third Party Procedure
• Condonation
• Director Liability
• Apportionment Of Damages Act
• Exception Application
• Misrepresentation

Eckard and Another v Outsurance Insurance Company Limited and Others (74991/16)

Eckard and Another v Outsurance Insurance Company Limited and Others (74991/16) [2020] ZAGPPHC 392 (30 July 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

74991/16

Judge

MNGQIBISA-THUSI

The High Court allowed a second applicant to serve a late third party notice on its insurer for contingent indemnity, but dismissed the first applicant for lack of standing.

• Third Party Procedure
• Insurance Indemnity
• Contractual Prescription
• Non Disclosure
• Prima Facie Case
• Third-party-procedure

Nomhle Percy Notshele obo Samkelo v Transnet Freight Rail Limited and Another (2561/2016)

Nomhle Percy Notshele obo Samkelo v Transnet Freight Rail Limited and Another (2561/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 819 (29 September 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2561/2016

Judge

Mdalana-Mayisela

The High Court dismissed an exception to a third party notice in a rail-accident damages claim, holding the pleaded issues were for trial, not exception.

• Third Party Procedure
• Exception Procedure
• Duty Of Care
• Negligence
• Apportionment Of Damages
• Third-party-procedure