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
Nedbank Ltd v Kgobe (2023/007205) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1056 (19 October 2024)
Summary judgment was refused because the lender’s particulars of claim did not allege delivery of the vehicle, leaving the pleaded cause of action incomplete.
Newnet Properties Pty (Ltd) t/a Sunshine Newnet v Road Accident Fund (017965/2023; 017845/2023; 033961/2023; 039171/2023; 048813/2023; 029152/2023;) [2024] ZAGPPHC 890 (3 September 2024)
The Court held that while supplier claims may be brought before the finalisation of the patient's personal claim, the applicant must allege and prove that the patient is entitled to compensation under section 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The deponent, as CEO of Newnet, may have knowledge of the medical services rendered but is inherently unlikely to possess knowledge of the facts surrounding the motor vehicle accidents, the cause, and the injuries. Therefore, the supporting affidavit does not meet the requirements of Uniform Rule 32, as the deponent cannot swear positively to all mate…
Source excerpt
Nissan Finance, a product of Wesbank, of FirstRand Bank Limited v Gusha Holdings and Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another (2022/9914) [2023] ZAGPJHC 303 (5 April 2023)
Summary judgment was refused because the plaintiff’s founding affidavit did not properly verify the cause of action under Rule 32, despite weak defences.
Firstrand Bank Limited v Lenyanyabedi (57115/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 324 (18 May 2022)
Summary judgment was refused in a bank debt case after the court found the defendant raised bona fide defences and triable issues, including Rule 32 and NCA notice objections.
Walls v Hurwitz (46883/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 194 (25 March 2022)
Summary judgment was opposed on several grounds, including liquidated amount, verification, joinder, and the National Credit Act. Leave to defend was granted.
SA Taxi Finance Solutions (Pty) Limited v Rakgatla (2020/7769) [2021] ZAGPJHC 678 (11 August 2021)
The High Court dismissed a summary judgment application because the supporting affidavit did not properly verify the cause of action under Rule 32(2)(b).
HL Matlala Properties CC and Another v SA Secularization Programme (Pty) Limited and Another (80902/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 189 (3 March 2020)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against summary judgment on claims A to E, finding the verification adequate and no defence disclosed.
Swimming South Africa v Members of the Executive Council Department of Sport, Arts, Culture, and Recreation of the Free State and Another (6254/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 73 (23 May 2019)
The High Court dismissed a summary judgment application because the pleaded contract was unclear, unverified, and did not properly identify the alleged agreement.
Phofung Project Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Standard Bank Of South Africa Ltd (A232/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 21 (8 March 2018)
The appeal succeeded because the summary judgment application was materially defective. The respondent failed to attach the written agreements forming the basis of its claims to the simple summons, resulting in the summons not disclosing a cause of action. The verifying affidavit could not cure this defect, and the respondent's reliance on Maharaj v Barclays National Bank Ltd was misplaced. Additionally, the claim against the surety was vague and embarrassing due to inconsistencies in the dates and documents referenced. The court a quo erred by focusing on the appellants' alleged technical de…
Source excerpt
Buttertum Property Letting (Pty) Ltd v Dihlabeng Local Municipality (A260/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 157; [2016] 4 All SA 895 (FB) (22 September 2016)
The appeal succeeded because the founding affidavit supporting the summary judgment application failed to verify the separate causes of action underlying the claim, as required by the Magistrates' Courts Rules. The respondent's deponent merely 'confirmed' the action stated in the summons, which is insufficient; the rules require verification of the cause of action and the amount claimed. The respondent's claim comprised multiple causes of action (rates, taxes, municipal services), but these were not separately pleaded or verified. Technical defects in the application cannot be cured by the ab…
Source excerpt
Explore more
