Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [2020] ZAGPJHC 139

Markit Systems (Pty) Limited v Fulcrum Group (Pty) Limited (2018/39734)

Markit Systems (Pty) Limited v Fulcrum Group (Pty) Limited (2018/39734) [2020] ZAGPJHC 139 (18 May 2020)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2018/39734
Judge
L R Adams

The court found that the issues raised in the defendant's special plea, specifically the right to cancel the agreement due to failure to agree on the BRD, are inextricably intertwined with the plaintiff's claim for damages based on alleged breach of contract. The events leading to the cancellation and the defendant's obligation to cooperate in developing the BRD are central to both parties' cases. As such, the issues cannot be conveniently separated for adjudication under rule 33(4). The application for separation of issues was therefore refused. The defendant, as the unsuccessful party, was…

Source excerpt

  • Separation Of Issues
  • Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 33 4
  • Contractual Repudiation
  • Damages For Breach Of Contract
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2020] ZASCA 20

Nature's Choice Farms (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (463/19)

Nature's Choice Farms (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (463/19) [2020] ZASCA 20; [2020] 3 All SA 57 (SCA) (25 March 2020)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
463/19
Judges
Petse, Swain, Nicholls, Dlodlo, Eksteen

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the separation of issues under Rule 33(4) was inappropriately granted and not properly circumscribed, resulting in confusion about the scope of the separated issue. The appellant's claim was based solely on the interpretation of paragraph 12 of the schedule of tariffs, which limits the calculation of rectified charges to 36 months but does not affect the enforceability or prescription of the claim. The schedule is not an Act of Parliament and does not govern prescription; the Prescription Act applies. The debt for rectified water charges became due upon d…

Source excerpt

  • Municipal Tariffs
  • Prescription
  • Interpretation Of Bylaws
  • Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 33 4
  • Local Government Municipal Systems Act
  • Water Usage Charges
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.