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
Ntuli v Department of Science and Innovations (D8746/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 27 (14 May 2025)
The High Court refused summary judgment because the plaintiff’s R27 billion claims were unliquidated and fell outside Uniform Rule 32(1).
Molupe v Nala Local Municipality and Another (1711/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 39 (4 February 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to prove his entitlement to damages, as the claim was illiquid and not suitable for determination by motion proceedings. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to quantify the damages, and the respondents' contentions regarding deductions and mitigation were not addressed. Regarding the review application, the court held that the Systems Act and 2014 Regulations relied upon by the respondents were constitutionally invalid and unenforceable at the time of the applicant's appointment. Therefore, the respondents could not rely on those provisi…
Source excerpt
Road Accident Fund v Newnet Properties (Pty) Ltd Sunshine Hospital (32323/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 656 (2 July 2024)
The High Court dismissed a rescission application, finding no reasonable explanation for default, no valid Rule 42 error, and conduct amounting to peremption.
D.C.A obo N.M and Another v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health, Northern Cape Province (2250/2016) [2023] ZANCHC 41 (11 August 2023)
The court found that the debt in question consists mainly of the present value of a loss which will occur in the future, and that interest should commence from the date the quantum was determined by agreement, which was made an order of court on 15 March 2023. The defendant's argument that interest is only payable upon default was rejected, as the statutory framework under section 2A of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act provides for interest to run from the date of determination of the quantum, subject to the court's discretion. The court exercised its discretion under section 2A(5) of the…
Source excerpt
Z.R.M v Road Accident Fund (4041/2020) [2023] ZAECMHC 12 (17 March 2023)
The court criticised the use of plaintiff “damages affidavits” in default judgment claims for unliquidated damages and confirmed that oral evidence is required.
Bisha and Others v Minister of Police (4144/2020, 1124/2019, 3806/2021, 4143/2020, 80/2021, 4342/2020) [2021] ZAECMHC 24 (13 July 2021)
The court held that default judgment claims for unliquidated damages based on unlawful arrest must follow the Judge President’s directive and be set down for oral evidence.
Delowar and Another v Soomar and Another (EL410/2021) [2021] ZAECELLC 21 (13 July 2021)
The court found that the respondents' concession regarding restoration of possession resolved the central dispute. The applicants failed to prove actual possession of the keys, only access to the store, which limited the spoliation remedy. Claims for unliquidated damages are not competent in motion proceedings and are not sanctioned by the applicable court directions. The applicants' delay and failure to accept the respondents' proposed order unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings, justifying a split costs order. The rule nisi was discharged, possession restored, and the respondents interdic…
Source excerpt
Autopax Passenger Service SOC v Mashile and Others (3360/2018) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 66 (21 May 2021)
The court found that two summonses were issued for the same cause of action, and the default judgment was granted without the court's knowledge of the pending first action. This constituted an irregularity, as the existence of lis pendens would have precluded the granting of the default judgment. The court held that, had it been aware of the duplication and the unliquidated nature of a substantial portion of the claim, it would not have granted the default judgment or would have sought further evidence. The subsequent withdrawal of the first summons did not cure the error, as the relevant fac…
Source excerpt
Le Roux v Visser (5694/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 127 (30 July 2020)
The High Court dismissed an application for return of a dog or damages, finding a fundamental factual dispute over the parties’ verbal agreement and no proper proof.
Pico v Malgas (A3114/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 214 (31 May 2019)
The High Court upheld an appeal and rescinded a default judgment entered for unliquidated damages without the evidence required by the magistrates’ court rules.
Explore more
