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
Zisiwe v Naude N.O and Others (KP309/2018) [2025] ZANWHC 106 (23 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for further particulars in a will dispute, holding the request was not strictly necessary for trial preparation.
AD Trade Belgium SPRL Private Limited v Central Bank of Guinea and Others (57858/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 300; [2024] 2 All SA 806 (GP) (5 April 2024)
The court held that Rule 21 of the Uniform Rules of Court applies to all parties to proceedings, including defendants who have not filed a plea and who elect to abide by the court's decision. Standard Bank, as a party to the litigation, can be compelled to deliver further particulars if such particulars are strictly necessary for trial preparation. The court found that the information sought by Ad Trade regarding the ownership, control, and transactions of the disputed accounts is central to the issues in the main action and necessary to prevent surprise at trial. Standard Bank's obligations…
Source excerpt
M.N.G obo R.V.M v Member of the Executive Council for Health, Free State Province (2399/2017) [2023] ZAFSHC 14 (26 January 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application to compel further particulars, holding that the respondent had given enough detail for trial preparation under Rule 21.
Guardrisk Insurance Company Ltd v IFS Risk Consultants CC and Others (11799/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 860 (7 November 2022)
The High Court ordered the plaintiff to provide further particulars needed for trial preparation and held the plaintiff liable for the application and wasted costs.
Bravo Group Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg (40205/14) [2022] ZAGPPHC 58 (15 February 2022)
The High Court ordered the City of Johannesburg to answer further particulars within 10 days and pay attorney-client costs after rejecting its claim that the matter was finalised.
Bravo Group Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg (40205/14) [2022] ZAGPPHC 101 (15 February 2022)
The High Court held that a prior default order in a statement-and-debatement matter did not finalise the litigation and ordered the respondent to answer further particulars.
Ngobese v MEC for Police, Roads and Transport for the Free State and Another (4137/2016) [2021] ZAFSHC 35 (18 February 2021)
The court held the defendants liable for wasted costs after their late counter-application and supplementary papers caused a postponement and left the trial unripe.
Ebenhaeser Communal Property Association and Others v The Minister of Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC05/2015) [2019] ZALCC 2; [2019] 3 All SA 530 (LCC) (6 May 2019)
The court found that Parker, the Plaintiffs’ attorney, persistently failed to comply with Practice Directions and court orders regarding the preparation of trial files, despite repeated admonitions and opportunities to rectify the situation. Her conduct was grossly negligent, materially deviated from the standard expected of legal practitioners, and prejudiced all parties by causing the adjournment of the trial. The court rejected Parker’s explanations regarding mandates and difficulties with the community and service provider, holding that these did not excuse her failure to comply with bind…
Source excerpt
Discovery Health (Pty) Ltd and Another v Pillay (1743/2015) [2019] ZANCHC 14 (29 March 2019)
Urgent application to compel discovery was struck off the roll as self-created urgency, with the court directing a pre-trial conference before a judge.
Manaka v South African National Council for the Blind (JS83/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 91 (6 March 2018)
The Labour Court ordered the applicant’s former attorneys to pay wasted costs after their late withdrawal caused a trial postponement.
Explore more
