South Africa Case Law

Northern Cape Livestock Vryburg Co-op Ltd v Grootbos Voerkrale (Pty) Ltd and Another (1880/2023)

Northern Cape Livestock Vryburg Co-op Ltd v Grootbos Voerkrale (Pty) Ltd and Another (1880/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 117 (14 July 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1880/2023

Judge

Oosthuizen-Senekal

The High Court upheld an exception to amended particulars of claim, finding the damages pleading too vague to assess, and gave the plaintiffs 20 days to amend.

• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Quantification Of Damages
• Rule 18 Uniform Rules
• Exception Procedure
• Delictual Liability
• Commercial Loss

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Nu-Way Housing Development Limited (050803/2022)

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Nu-Way Housing Development Limited (050803/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 691 (27 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

050803/2022

Judge

Retief

High Court decision on a late Rule 30 application and exceptions against pleadings in a property and unlawful occupation dispute.

• Exception Procedure
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Statutory Obligations Under Housing Act
• Constitutional Damages
• Unlawful Occupation
• Amendment Of Pleadings

Solidarity obo Van Schalkwyk v University of South Africa (JS668/24)

Solidarity obo Van Schalkwyk v University of South Africa (JS668/24) [2025] ZALCJHB 239 (19 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS668/24

Judge

A Anestidis

The Labour Court dismissed UNISA’s exception to a claim for unpaid incentive payments, finding the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded a contractual cause of action.

• Contract Of Employment
• Exception Procedure
• Section 77 3 Bcea
• Employment Policy Incorporation
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Labour-law

Maboni Projects (Pty) Ltd v Motheo Construction Group and Another (2023/023364)

Maboni Projects (Pty) Ltd v Motheo Construction Group and Another (2023/023364) [2025] ZAGPPHC 498 (16 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/023364

Judge

H F Jacobs

The court found that all the complaints raised by the first defendant in its notice of exception were valid. The plaintiff's particulars of claim were so vague and embarrassing that, if allowed to stand, they would make it impossible for a trial court to recognise the claim, regardless of the facts that might emerge at trial. The purpose of pleadings is to distil the dispute, and the plaintiff's particulars failed to meet this requirement. Accordingly, the exception was upheld, and the particulars of claim were struck out.

Source excerpt

• Exception To Pleadings
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Rule 30 Application

Zelolo v Anglo American Platinum Mogalakwena Mine (9395/2022)

Zelolo v Anglo American Platinum Mogalakwena Mine (9395/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 72 (16 April 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

9395/2022

Judge

Kganyago

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were poorly drafted, failing to distinguish clearly between claims for compensation under statute and damages under delict. The use of 'compensation' and 'damages' interchangeably created confusion as to the legal basis of the claim. The court held that OHSA does not apply to mines and that non-compliance with OHSA only gives rise to criminal, not civil, liability. The particulars of claim did not adequately plead the elements of delict, specifically wrongfulness and causation. The quantum of damages was not set out with sufficient par…

Source excerpt

• Exception Procedure
• Occupational Health And Safety
• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Quantum Of Damages
• Wrongfulness And Negligence

Hlatshwayo v Multichoice South Africa and Others (2021/27076)

Hlatshwayo v Multichoice South Africa and Others (2021/27076) [2025] ZAGPJHC 364 (28 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/27076

Judge

WJ du Plessis

The High Court upheld exceptions to defamation particulars that were vague and embarrassing, granted condonation for late filing, and dismissed a Rule 30 application.

• Defamation
• Actio Iniuriarum
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Special Damages
• Condonation
• Rule 30 Application

Menemene v National office Spar Group Limited and Others (2074/2021)

Menemene v National office Spar Group Limited and Others (2074/2021) [2025] ZANCHC 22 (14 March 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2074/2021

Judge

MC Mamosebo

The court found that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing, as they failed to distinguish clearly between the causes of action for unlawful arrest, detention, malicious prosecution, and defamation. The damages claimed were unsubstantiated and lacked sufficient detail, contravening Rule 18(10). The pleadings did not enable the defendants to respond adequately, resulting in prejudice. The court held that the exception should be upheld, granting the plaintiff leave to amend her particulars of claim within 21 days. Costs were awarded against the plaintiff, inclu…

Source excerpt

• Exception Procedure
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Unlawful Arrest
• Malicious Prosecution
• Defamation
• Quantification Of Damages

Steenkamp N.O. and Others v De Waal and Another (3389/2023)

Steenkamp N.O. and Others v De Waal and Another (3389/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 58 (17 February 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3389/2023

Judge

Mahlatsi AJ

The High Court dismissed an exception to particulars of claim, holding the pleadings were sufficiently clear and that NCA and non-joinder issues were for trial.

• Exception Procedure
• National Credit Act
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Oral Credit Agreement
• Life Policy Cession
• Exception-procedure

A.E.S obo L.T.S v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development of the Free State (1094/2024)

A.E.S obo L.T.S v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development of the Free State (1094/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 34 (13 February 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1094/2024

Judge

J J F Hefer

The court held that the plaintiff lacked locus standi to claim damages in a representative capacity for her daughter, as the daughter was a major at the time the action was instituted, in terms of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, which reduced the age of majority to 18. No evidence could be led to prove the contrary, and the particulars of claim did not disclose a cause of action in this respect. The exception on this ground was upheld. Regarding the second ground, the court found that the particulars of claim, although lacking some detail, were not vague and embarrassing to the extent that the…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Exception Procedure
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Children S Act
• Damages Claim

Pillay v Mercantile Bank (10310/2022)

Pillay v Mercantile Bank (10310/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1284 (13 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

10310/2022

Judge

Kekana ND

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with Rule 18(6) by not attaching the contract upon which its locus standi is based. The particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing, as they do not provide sufficient detail regarding the acquisition of rights from Mercantile Bank, leaving uncertainty as to whether the respondent is entitled to enforce the loan agreement. This omission prejudices the applicant, who cannot properly plead to the claim. The preliminary issue regarding the timing of the notice to except was dismissed, as the applicant responded within the period allowed by…

Source excerpt

• Exception Procedure
• Locus Standi
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Rule 18 Compliance
• Contract Acquisition