South Africa Case Law

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Masenya (2024-123072)

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Masenya (2024-123072) [2025] ZAGPPHC 782 (1 August 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-123072

Judge

J Vorster

The court found that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim contain sufficient allegations to establish publication, as specific individuals and groups were identified as recipients of the defamatory statements. The allegations, when read contextually, accuse the plaintiff of fraud and other serious misconduct, which are capable of defamatory meaning and are prima facie wrongful. The court held that Uniform Rule 18 does not apply since the cause of action is defamation, not contract. Furthermore, intent to defame is presumed in law once publication of defamatory matter is established. A…

Source excerpt

• Exception To Pleadings
• Defamation
• Publication Requirement
• Wrongfulness
• Animus Iniurandi
• Uniform Rule 18

Kaykaysim Projects (Pty) Ltd v Dihlabeng Local Municipality (1355/2024)

Kaykaysim Projects (Pty) Ltd v Dihlabeng Local Municipality (1355/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 16 (23 January 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1355/2024

Judge

Greyling-Coetzer AJ

The High Court upheld an exception to particulars of claim seeking retention money, finding the plaintiff had not pleaded enough contract facts to sustain the claim.

• Exception To Pleadings
• Specific Performance
• Contractual Entitlement
• Retention Money
• Uniform Rule 18
• Exception-to-pleadings

S v Thupuli (504/2021)

S v Thupuli (504/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 67 (7 March 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

504/2021

Judge

Molitsoane

The court held that a combined summons was not defective for failing to state the signatory attorney’s right of appearance, and uplifted a notice of bar.

• Uniform Rule 18
• Right Of Appearance Act
• Irregular Step
• Notice Of Bar
• Condonation
• Pleading Signature Requirements

Seleso v Road Accident Fund (4361/2018)

Seleso v Road Accident Fund (4361/2018) [2022] ZAFSHC 128 (25 February 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4361/2018

Judge

Molitsoane

The court awarded general damages to a road accident plaintiff with cervical and tibial injuries, and ordered payment of agreed loss of earnings plus an undertaking for future medical costs.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• General Damages
• Quantum Of Damages
• Personal Injury
• Uniform Rule 18
• Road-accident-fund-act

Municipal Manager, Fezile Dabi District Municipality v Olifant and Another (504/2021)

Municipal Manager, Fezile Dabi District Municipality v Olifant and Another (504/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 46 (7 January 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

504/2021

Judge

Molitsoane

The High Court held that a combined summons is not defective merely because it does not show the signing attorney’s right of appearance, and uplifted the notice of bar.

• Uniform Rule 18
• Right Of Appearance Act
• Irregular Steps
• Notice Of Bar
• Pleading Signature Requirements
• Civil-procedure

Mofokeng v Minister of Police (2017/22851)

Mofokeng v Minister of Police (2017/22851) [2019] ZAGPPHC 79 (19 March 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2017/22851

Judge

Adams

The court found that the defendant's proposed amended plea sets out the material facts upon which the defence is based, specifically that the arresting officer reasonably suspected the plaintiff of having committed schedule 1 offences under the Criminal Procedure Act. The plea contains admissions regarding the circumstances of arrest and detention and pleads legal justification under section 40(1)(b). The court distinguished the Windvogel case, noting that in this matter, the defendant pleaded the factual basis for the arrest, unlike in Windvogel where only legal conclusions were pleaded. The…

Source excerpt

• Pleading Requirements
• Unlawful Arrest
• Damages For Unlawful Detention
• Excipient Pleading
• Uniform Rule 18
• Amendment Of Pleadings

Roelof Laufs (Pty) Ltd and Others v Absa Bank Limited (94261/16)

Roelof Laufs (Pty) Ltd and Others v Absa Bank Limited (94261/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 715 (20 November 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

94261/16

Judge

A B Rossouw

The High Court upheld an exception to particulars of claim for failing to plead facts supporting a tacit contract, duty to account, or debatement of accounts.

• Pleading Requirements
• Tacit Contract
• Implied Terms
• Fiduciary Duty
• Uniform Rule 18
• Civil-procedure

Mettle Architects CC v Lason Trading 12 (Pty) Limited (2008/30703)

Mettle Architects CC v Lason Trading 12 (Pty) Limited (2008/30703) [2012] ZAGPJHC 301 (19 March 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2008/30703

Judge

G C Wright

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim do not support the importation of a right to fair and reasonable remuneration into the consultancy contract, as the contract expressly provides for the calculation of fees and contains a non-variation clause. The plaintiff's alleged waiver of its right to remuneration based on a percentage of project cost does not entitle it to substitute a new basis for remuneration not contained in the contract. The exceptions based on insufficient averments to sustain a cause of action and on the alleged variation of the contract succeed. However, th…

Source excerpt

• Contractual Waiver
• Non Variation Clause
• Implied Terms
• Quantum Meruit
• Uniform Rule 18
• Remuneration Calculation

ABSA Bank Ltd in its capacity as the trustee of the Fountainhead Property Trust v Barinor New Business Venture (Pty) Ltd (7630/2011)

ABSA Bank Ltd in its capacity as the trustee of the Fountainhead Property Trust v Barinor New Business Venture (Pty) Ltd (7630/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 313; 2011 (6) SA 225 (WCC) (17 June 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7630/2011

Judge

A.G. Binns-Ward

The court held that the combined summons was fatally defective because it was signed by an attorney who, although holding a certificate of right of appearance under the Right of Appearance in Courts Act, was not enrolled by the registrar of the Western Cape High Court as required by the Attorneys Act. The court found that the relevant legislative provisions require that an attorney must be admitted, enrolled, and entitled to practise as such in the division concerned to sign pleadings. The Right of Appearance in Courts Act regulates only the right to appear in superior courts and does not ove…

Source excerpt

• Right Of Appearance In Courts Act
• Uniform Rule 18
• Signature Of Pleadings
• Attorneys Act
• Summary Judgment Procedure