South Africa Case Law

University of The Free State v Christo Strydom Nutrition (CSM) In re: University of The Free State v Christo Strydom Nutrition (CSM) (2433/2019)

University of The Free State v Christo Strydom Nutrition (CSM) In re: University of The Free State v Christo Strydom Nutrition (CSM) (2433/2019) [2022] ZAFSHC 174 (18 July 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2433/2019

Judge

Opperman

The court upheld an exception to a plea based on a written contract, rejecting claims of mistaken citation of parties, tacit international accreditation, and bypass of arbitration.

• Exception Procedure
• Written Contracts
• Tacit Terms
• Rectification
• Arbitration Clause
• Exception-procedure

Karpah Construction CC v Potgieter and Others (530/2014)

Karpah Construction CC v Potgieter and Others (530/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 230 (12 December 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

530/2014

Judge

A. Kruger

High Court dismissed an exception to particulars of claim in a construction dispute, holding the unsigned written agreement could still be binding and the pleading was not vague.

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Written Contracts
• Non Variation Clause
• Vagueness And Embarrassment
• Cause Of Action
• Exception-to-particulars-of-claim

Moosa NO and Others v Hassam and Others (12256/08)

Moosa NO and Others v Hassam and Others (12256/08) [2009] ZAKZPHC 62; 2010 (2) SA 410 (KZP) (20 November 2009)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

12256/08

Judge

Swain

The court held that Rule 18(6) requires a party relying on a written contract to annex a true copy of the contract to its pleading. An allegation of non-possession does not constitute compliance with the rule nor does it excuse non-compliance. The respondents failed to seek condonation or provide facts explaining their inability to annex the agreement. Furthermore, evidence suggested that the respondents had received a copy of the agreement but did not annex it. The court concluded that the respondents must remedy the irregularity by annexing the contract within fifteen days, failing which th…

Source excerpt

• Rule 18 6 Pleading Requirements
• Irregular Proceedings
• Written Contracts
• Condonation Under Rule 27 3

Fraser and Another v Viljoen (621/06)

Fraser and Another v Viljoen (621/06) [2008] ZASCA 24; 2008 (4) SA 106 (SCA); [2008] 3 All SA 233 (SCA) (27 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

621/06

Judges

Scott, Cameron, Mthiyane, Combrinck, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contract for the sale of immovable property was void for non-compliance with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. The document delivered to the appellants by the respondent did not contain the names of the purchasers or a description of the property, both of which are material terms. The court rejected the argument that one contracting party may authorise the other to insert such terms after signature, as this would undermine the certainty and purpose of the statute. The object of the legislation is to prevent disputes, fraud, and uncertainty b…

Source excerpt

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Formalities Of Sale Of Land
• Written Contracts
• Statute Of Frauds
• Specific Performance