Civil Procedure/ Civil Procedure in the Superior Courts/ Part B High Court/ UNIFORM RULE 18 RULES

RELATING TO PLEADING GENERALLY/ Formal Requirements

Formal Requirements

B18.2 Rule 18(1)

A combined summons, and every other pleading except a summons, shall be signed
by both an advocate and an attorney or, in the case of an attorney 1 who, under
section 4(2) of the Right of Appearance in Courts Act, 1995 (Act No. 62 of 1995), has
the right of appearance in the Supreme Court, only by such attorney or, if a party
sues or defends personally, by that party.
[Amended by GN R873 of 1996.]

1 An attorney enrolled and with right of appearance registered at one High Court needs be enrolled at another High Court
to practise there. "Practice" includes the signing combined summons: Absa Bank Ltd v Barinor New Business Venture
(Pty) Ltd 2011 (6) SA 225 (WCC). The attorney's right of appearance need not though be registered at a High Court, for
him to appear there. The certificate of a registrar under s 4(2) of the Right of Appearance in Courts Act 62 of 1995, to
the effect that an attorney has the right of appearance in the High Court, confers on that attorney the right to appear
before, and carry out the functions of an advocate in, all the divisions of the High Court. The certificate also entitles the
attorney to sign pleadings, qua advocate, in all divisions of the High Court, but the attorney's right to sign pleadings in his
capacity as attorney is limited to the division of the High Court in which he was admitted or enrolled: Liberty Group Ltd v
Singh 2012 (5) SA 526 (KZD).

B18.3 Rule 18(2)

The title of the action describing the parties thereto and the number assigned thereto
by the registrar, shall appear at the head of each pleading, provided that where the
parties are numerous or the title lengthy and abbreviation is reasonably possible, it
shall be so abbreviated.

B18.4 Rule 18(3)

Every pleading shall be divided into paragraphs (including subparagraphs) which shall
be consecutively numbered and shall, as nearly as possible, each contain a distinct
averment.

B18.5 Formal requirements of pleadings1 Rule 18 deals with the formal requirements for pleadings and sets out
the bare minimum required of a factual averment. The material requirements for pleadings are contained in rule 23.2
The rule does not require that pleadings following a summons must be signed by the same attorney who signed the
summons.3 It is permissible for one of the listed legal practitioners to sign on behalf of another, but no one who is
not so listed may do so.4 If the rules regarding signature are not complied with, the opposing party may apply to
have the pleading set aside as an irregular proceeding.5 A juristic person may not sign a pleading through its
officers.6
1 R 18(1) as amended as from 1 July 1996. This amendment supersedes Fortune v Fortune 1996 (2) SA 550 (C), [1996] 2
All SA 128 (C) which set out the Cape practice.
2 Jowell v Bramwell­Jones 1998 (1) SA 836 (W) 902­903.
3 Gcezengana v SA Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1995 (2) SA 69 (TkGD).
4 Estate Amod Jeewa v Kharwa (1911) 32 NLR 371; Donovan v Bevan 1909 TS 723. There are conflicting judgments as to
whether or not an attorney with the right of appearance in one division does not have the right in another division: Zeda
Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd t/a Avis Fleet Services v Pillay 2007 (3) SA 89 (D); Absa Bank v Barinor New Business Venture
(Pty) Ltd 2011 (6) SA 225 (WCC); Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd t/a Avis Fleet Services v Pillay and Others 2007 (3) SA 89
(D); S v Sewnandan [1999] 2 All SA 397; 1999 (2) SA 1087 (O); It is submitted that the approach adopted in Liberty
Group Ltd v Singh and Another 2012 (5) SA 526 (KZD) is correct.
5 R 30(1); Barclays Bank v Pitje 1958 (4) SA 670 (T); Suliman v Karodia 1926 WLD 102; Western Bank Bpk v De Beer
1975 (3) SA 772 (T); Condonation may be granted: Plascon­Evans (Tvl) Ltd v Virginia Glass Works (Pty) Ltd
1983 (1) SA 465 (O).
6 R 16. SA Cultivators (Pty) Ltd v Flange Engineering Co (Pty) Ltd 1962 (3) SA 156 (T); Arma Carpet House (Johannesburg)
(Pty) Ltd v Domestic and Commercial Carpet Fittings (Pty) Ltd 1977 (3) SA 448 (W). But see Mittal Steel SA Ltd t/a
Vereeniging Steel v Pipechem CC 2008 (1) SA 640 (C).

Civil Procedure/ Civil Procedure in the Superior Courts/ Part B High Court/ UNIFORM RULE 18 RULES
RELATING TO PLEADING GENERALLY/ Statement of Facts

Statement of Facts

B18.6 Rule 18(4)

Every pleading shall contain a clear and concise statement of the material facts upon
which the pleader relies for his claim, defence or answer to any pleading, as the case
 may be, with sufficient particularity to enable the opposite party to reply thereto.

B18.7 General principles The object of a pleading is to state in clear and concise terms1 the facts2 upon which a
party relies to enable all sides to come to trial prepared to meet the case of the other3 and to enable the court to
isolate the issue it is to adjudicate upon.4 Although pleadings must be concise5 they must have sufficient
particularity not to be vague and embarrassing.6 It may be assumed that since the abolition of further particulars7
and the fact that non­compliance with the provisions of the rule amounts to an irregular step,8 a greater degree of
particularity of pleadings is required and that the pleading itself must to some limited extent fill in the picture of the
claim or defence.9

The pleadings are there to define the issues between the parties.10 The parties may, by agreement, re­define
the issues arising from the pleadings.11 After definition of the issues, the evidence is led at a trial. As such, a party
may not plead one issue and then at the trial and/or on appeal attempt to canvas another which was not put in
issue and fully investigated. Jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the pleadings.12 It is not necessarily the legal
conclusion in the pleadings which determines the real issues between the parties but the facts relied upon. If these
facts ground a different cause of action without the other party being prejudiced by the form of the pleadings or any
subsequent broadening of the issues during the course of the trial, then there is no substantive reason why the
case should not be determined on the basis of that other cause of action. However, the variance between the
pleadings and evidence tendered may render the evidence unreliable and inadmissible.13

It is not allowed to winkle a putative claim out of a clearly pleaded cause of action sufficient to support another
barely discernible cause as it is at odds with the object of pleading, viz clear and precise definition of issues, and be
an invitation to misleading formulation of claims.14 The parties may by agreement re­define the issues arising from
the pleadings.15

Pleadings must be lucid and logical16 and in an intelligible form.17 The cause of action or defence must appear
clearly (or, at least, as a matter of necessary implication) 18 from the factual allegations made19 but an incorrect
label does not affect the pleading.20 It is wrong to direct the attention of the other party to one issue and then
attempt to canvass another. 21 It does not suffice to plead a conclusion, opinion or inference without pleading the
facts giving rise thereto.22

In this regard, a party who challenges the constitutionality of a provision in a statute must raise the
constitutionality point at the time that legal proceedings are instituted. The party must place before the court
information relevant to the determination of this issue. Similarly, a party seeking to justify a limitation of a
constitutional right must place before the court information relevant to the issue. All this information must be placed
before the court of first instance to that the other party will know the case it has to meet. It is not sufficient to raise
the issue in heads of argument without laying a proper foundation for such challenge in the papers or the
pleadings. Nor can parties hope to supplement and make their case on appeal.23 The test is of equal force where a
party seeks to invoke the Constitution in order to adapt or change an existing precedent or fule of the common law
or customary law to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.24

Facts and not evidence must be pleaded.25 The facts pleaded must be admissible facts.26 The facts to be
pleaded are the facta probanda and not the facta probantia.27 There is no duty to plead facts in anticipation of a
defence.28 If it is necessary to plead history for purposes of clarity it should be done with caution and the history
must be clearly severed from the cause of action.29

In terms of rule 18(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court, every pleading shall contain a clear and concise statement of
the material facts upon which the pleader relies. Particulars of claim should be so phrased that the issues are
clearly identified and that the defendant is placed in a position to reasonably and fairly plead thereto. An exception
to a pleading on the ground that it is vague and embarrassing involves a two­fold consideration: firstly, whether
the pleading lacks particularity to the extent that it is vague and, secondly, whether the vagueness causes
embarrassment of such a nature that the excipient is prejudiced ­ where the court is unable to find that the
particulars of claim is meaningless or capable of more than one meaning, the exceptions will be dismissed.30

A party will not be permitted to raise a point not covered in the pleadings if its consideration will result in
unfairness to the other party. 31 Trial particulars not being pleadings, should not prohibit evidence which departs
from said particulars.32

If a party relies on a statutory provision, the facts entitling it to invoke the particular section must be pleaded.33
It is preferable, although not obligatory, to plead, in addition, the specific provisions.34 If a party relies on an implicit
provision of a statute, the alleged provision should be pleaded.35 If a party relies on a clause in an agreement the
clause must be pleaded.36

Inconsistent allegations are permissible in claims or pleas provided they are in the alternative,37 do not cause
the other party embarrassment or prejudice,38 and are legally tenable.39 A case may not be decided by invoking
relevant legislation which is not relied upon in the pleadings.40 A litigant can plead, but not testify, in the
alternative.41

In divorce matters the new terminology employed by the Children's Act 38 of 2005should be used in pleadings
and court orders.42

Courts deciding constitutional matters may, and in some circumstances are obliged to, make any order that is
just and equitable. These powers are not confined by the pleadings.43 Litis Contestatio refers to close of pleadings
but when pleadings are re­opened by amendment, the initial situation of litis contestatio falls away and is only
restored once the issues have once more been defined in the pleadings.44 By appending one's signature to a
pleading, an attorney or advocate confirms that he/she has been scrupulous in preparing the pleading.45
 Any admission embodied in the pleadings in relation to a claim in convention is only relevant in relation to a claim
in reconvention if and to the extent that the admission is incorporated into the pleadings in relation to the claim in
reconvention.46

A party who does not object to the pleadings or argument or evidence not foreshadowed by the pleadings,
cannot complain that the pleadings are defective and that he has been surprised.47
1 Trope v South African Reserve Bank 1993 (3) SA 264 (A); Jowell v Bramwell­Jones 1998 (1) SA 836 (W) 902­903;
Nasionale Aartappel Koöperasie Bpk v PriceWaterhouseCoopers Inc [2001] 2 All SA 319 (T), 2001 (2) SA 790 (T); Nel
NNO v McArthur 2003 (4) SA 142 (T).
2 Ibid. Ex parte Vally: In re Bhoolay v Netherlands Insurance Co of SA Ltd 1972 (1) SA 184 (W); Jeramsingh v Prestige
Homes 1975 (2) SA 704 (N).
3 Benson & Simpson v Robinson 1917 WLD 126.
4 Robinson v Randfontein Estates Gold Mining Co Ltd 1925 AD 173 198; Courtney­Clarke v Bassingwaighte 1991 (1) SA 684
(Nm); Absa Bank Ltd v Blumberg & Wilkinson 1995 (4) SA 403 (W); EC Chenia and Sons CC v Lamé & Van Blerk
2006 (4) SA 574 (SCA); Persons Listed in Schedule "A" to the Particulars of Claim v Discovery Health and Others [2009]
2 All SA 479 (T).
5 R 18(4).
6 Cumes v Estate Cumes 1950 (2) SA 15 ( C ) 2 3 ; Epstein v Christodoulou 1982 (3) SA 347 (W). If it is vague and
embarrassing the other party may except: Trope v South African Reserve Bank 1993 (3) SA 264 (A).
7 During 1987. For a criticism of the abolition of further particulars: Thoroughbred Breeders' Association of SA v Price
Waterhouse [1999] 4 All SA 69 (W) 134, 1999 (4) SA 968 (W) 1035. As to the purpose of further particulars under the
repealed rule, see eg White v Moffett Building & Contracting (Pty) Ltd 1952 (3) SA 307 ( O ) ; Purdon v Muller
1961 (2) SA 211 (A) 215.
8 R 18(12).
9 Cf HT Group (Pty) Ltd v Hazelhurst [2003] 2 All SA 262 (C) pars 7­8. The statement in the text was qualified in Trope v
South African Reserve Bank 1992 (3) SA 208 (T) by the rider that the ultimate test is still whether the pleading complies
with the general rule enunciated in r 18(4) and the principles enunciated in the existing case law. Cf Minister van Wet en
Orde v Jacobs 1999 (1) SA 944 (O) 954.
10 Dede Pine & Timber Products CC v Blick South Africa (Pty) Ltd [2012] JOL 28775 (KZP) at [6]; Kota v Minister of Safety
and Security [2012] JOL 28855 (ECP) at [39].
11 Knox D'arcy AG and Another v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of SA (9625/12) [2013] ZASCA 93 (05 June
2013) at [35].
12 Hulane and Another v Msunduzi Municipality [2012] JOL 28315 (KZP), 2012 (3) SA 121 (KZP) at [12]; Gcaba v Minister of
Safety and Security and Others 2010 (1) BCLR 35 (CC) at [75].
13 F v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (Institute for Security Studies and Others as Amici Curiae) 2012 (3) BCLR
244 (CC), [2012] JOL 28228 (CC), 2012 (1) SA 536 (CC) at [128].
14 Presidency Property Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Patel 2011 (5) SA 432 (SCA) at par [21].
15 Transman (Pty) Ltd v South African Post Office Ltd and Another (778/11) [2012] ZASCA 145 (28 September 2012) at
[11].
16 Gerber v Naude 1971 (3) SA 55 ( T ) 5 8 ; Jowell v Bramwell­Jones 1998 (1) SA 836 (W) 902­903; Koth Property
Consultants CC v Lepelle­Nkumpi Local Municipality 2006 (2) SA 25 (T).
17 General Commercial and Industrial Finance Corp Ltd v Pretoria Portland Cement Co Ltd 1944 AD 444 455; Allers v
Rautenbach 1949 (4) SA 226 (O) 233.
18 Swart v Shaw t/a Shaw Racing Stables 1996 (1) SA 202 (C) 206I­J.
19 Dun & Bradstreet (Pty) Ltd v SA Merchants Combined Credit Bureau (Cape) (Pty) Ltd 1968 (1) SA 209 (C) 224; Stead v
Conradie 1995 (2) SA 111 (A) 122; Evins v Shield Insurance Co Ltd 1980 (2) SA 814 (A); Standard Bank of SA Ltd v
Oneanate Investments (Pty) Ltd 1995 (4) SA 510 (C); Wavecrest Sea Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Elliot 1995 (4) SA 596 (SE);
Olpin v Administrator, Cape 1995 (4) SA 850 (C); Picbel Groep Voorsorgfonds v Somerville [2013] 2 All SA 692 (SCA).
20 Lobo Properties (Pty) Ltd v Express Lift Co (SA) (Pty) Ltd 1961 (1) SA 704 (C) 711.
21 Kali v Incorporated General Insurances Ltd 1976 (2) SA 179 (D); Imprefed (Pty) Ltd v National Transport Commission
1993 (3) SA 94(A) 107­108; Stead v Conradie 1995 (2) SA 111 (A) 122; Minister of Safety and Security v Slabbert [2010]
2 All SA 474 (SCA).
22 Radebe v Eastern Transvaal Development Board 1988 (2) SA 785 (A) 793; Buchner v Johannesburg Cons Investment Co
Ltd 1995 (1) SA 215 (T).
23 Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope and Others 2001 (2) BCLR 133 (CC), 2001 (2) SA 388
(CC) at [22]; South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Another v Garvas and Others (City of Cape Town as
Intervening Party and Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae) 2012 (8) BCLR 840 (CC); [2012] JOL 28986
(CC); 2013 (1) SA 83 (CC) at [114], [140]; Zulu and Others v Ethekwini Municipality and Others 2014 (4) SA 590 (CC) at
[16], [23]­[27].
24 Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd 2012 (BCLR 219 (CC), 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC) at [52]
25 Moaki v Reckitt & Colman (Africa) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 98 (A); Millman NO v Klein 1986 (1) SA 465 (C) 477; Knox D'Arcy AG
and Another v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa [2013] 3 All SA 404 (SCA); Du Toit NO and
Others v Steinhoff International Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others and a related matter [2020] 1 All SA 142 (WCC).
26 Du Plessis v Nel 1952 (1) SA 513 (A); Ferreira v SAPDC (Trading) Ltd 1983 (1) SA 235 (A).
27 Makgae v Senraboer (Koöperatief) Bpk 1981 (4) SA 239 ( T ) 2 4 4 ; Nasionale Aartappel Koöperasie Bpk v Price
Waterhouse Coopers Ing [2001] 2 All SA 319 (T), 2001 (2) SA 790 (T).
28 Prins v Universiteit van Pretoria 1980 (2) SA 171 (T); F & I Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suidelike
Afrika Bpk [1998] 4 All SA 480 (A) 483, 1999 (1) SA 515 (SCA) 525.
29 Secretary for Finance v Esselman 1988 (1) SA 594 (SWA); Rail Commuters' Action Group v Transnet Ltd [2007] 1 All SA
279 (C), 2006 (6) SA 68 (C) 84.
30 Du Toit NO and Others v Steinhoff International Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others and a related matter [2020] 1 All SA
142 (WCC).
31 Maphango and Others v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd (Inner City Resources Centre As Amicus Curiae) 2012 BCLR
449 (CC), [2012] JOL 28529 (CC); 2012 (3) SA 531 (CC) at [109]; Firstrand Bank v Venter 2012] JOL 29436 (SCA),
(829/11) [2012] ZASCA 117 (14 September 2012) at [30]; Kota v Minister of Safety and Security [2012] JOL 28855
(ECP) at [39].
32 Ruslyn Mining and Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd v Alexkor Ltd [2012] 1 All SA 317 (SCA) at [18].
33 Nuwe SA Prinsipale Beleggings Bpk v Saambou Holdings Ltd 1992 (4) SA 696 (W) 707; P Trimborn Agency CC v Grace
Trucking CC 2006 (1) SA 427 (N) 430.
 34 Ketteringham v City of Cape Town 1934 AD 80 90; Yannakou v Apollo Club 1974 (1) SA 614 (A) 623. Touyz v Greater
Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council [1996] 1 All SA 115 (A), 1996 (1) SA 950 (A): when an averment in a
pleading is couched in the same language as that of a statutory provision, it may be legitimate to conclude that the
pleader assigned to the words in question their statutory meaning. See also Naude v Fraser [1998] 3 All SA 239 (SCA)
260, 1 9 9 8 ( 4 ) S A 5 3 9 ( S C A ) ; Fundstrust (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) v Van Deventer [ 1 9 9 7 ] 1 A l l S A 6 4 4 ( A ) ,
1997 (1) SA 710 (A); Terblanche NO v Baxtrans CC 1998 (3) SA 912 (C) 917.
35 Arun Property Development (Edms) Bpk v Stad Kaapstad 2003 (6) SA 82 (C).
36 Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Ltd v SMD Telecommunications CC [2011] 2 All SA 34 (SCA) at par 24.
37 SAR&H v Lennon Ltd 1945 AD 157 167; Barclays National Bank Ltd v Pretorius 1978 (3) SA 885 (O); Kragga Kamma
Estates CC v Flanagan 1995 (2) SA 367 (A) 374.
38 Middelburg Coal Agency v Johannesburg Municipality 1916 TPD 224.
39 Vanger v Thomson & Meyer 1915 CPD 752; Custom Credit Corp (Pty) Ltd v Shembe 1972 (3) SA 462 (A).
40 Maphango and Others v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd (Inner City Resources Centre as Amicus Curiae) 2012 BCLR
449 (CC), [2012] JOL 28529 (CC), 2012 (3) SA 531 (CC) at [113].
41 McDonald v Young 2012 (3) SA 1 (SCA) pars [23] and [25].
42 WW v EW 2011 (6) SA 53 (KZP).
43 Maphango and Others v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd (Inner City Resources Centre as Amicus Curiae) 2012 BCLR
449 (CC), [2012] JOL 28529 (CC), 2012 (3) SA 531 (CC) at [153].
44 Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality [2012] 2 All SA 262 ( S C A ) , [2012] JOL 28621 (SCA),
2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA) at [14]­[15].
45 Motswai v Road Accident Fund (2013) SA 8 (GSJ) at [30].
46 Firstrand Bank v Venter [2012] JOL 29436 (SCA), (829/11) [2012] ZASCA 117 (14 September 2012) at [28].
47 MN v AJ 2013 (3) SA 26 (WCC) at [26], [38]­[39].

Civil Procedure/ Civil Procedure in the Superior Courts/ Part B High Court/ UNIFORM RULE 18 RULES
RELATING TO PLEADING GENERALLY/ Denials

Denials

B18.8 Rule 18(5)

When in any pleading a party denies an allegation of fact in the previous pleading of
the opposite party, he shall not do so evasively but shall answer the point of
substance.

B18.9 Denials This subject is of special importance in the context of pleas and is discussed under rule 22.

Civil Procedure/ Civil Procedure in the Superior Courts/ Part B High Court/ UNIFORM RULE 18 RULES
RELATING TO PLEADING GENERALLY/ Contracts

Contracts

B18.10 Rule 18(6)

A party who in his pleading relies upon a contract shall state whether the contract is
written or oral, and when, where and by whom it was concluded, and if the contract is
written a true copy thereof or of the part relied on in the pleading shall be annexed to
the pleading.

B18.11 Rule 18(7)

It shall not be necessary in any pleading to state the circumstances from which an
alleged implied term can be inferred.

B18.12 Contracts1 These sub­rules do not apply to simple summonses under rule 17.2 A party who in his pleading
relies upon a contract must state whether it is written or oral and when, where and by whom it was concluded.3

It is not necessary to state the circumstances from which an implied term can be inferred. This provision relates
only to a term in an express contract. The case where there is an implied term in an express contract, however,
must be distinguished from the case where an entire contract is implied. Here, a statement of the facts and
circumstances constituting the implied contract relied upon is required: in other words, the facts and circumstances
from which such implied contract is inferred must be set out in the pleading.4 Where a party relies upon an
agreement, which is alleged to be in writing or oral, the other party is entitled to infer that reliance is placed upon
an express term and not on a tacit term.5

The degree of precision depends on the circumstances of each case. More is required when claims are based
upon the provisions of a detailed and complex contract. A pleading ought not to be misleading by referring to
certain clauses of the contract as identifying the cause of action when another is intended or will at some later
stage be relied upon.6
 It is the practice in at least the Western Cape and South Gauteng divisions of the High Court that a party who
makes use of a simple summons attaches the contract relied upon to the simple summons. It is submitted that this
is a salutary practice which assists the Court and the defendant.7
1 Van Tonder v Western Credit Ltd 1966 (1) SA 189 (C) gives the history.
2 Frank Keevey Ltd v Koos van der Merwe Beleggings (Kroonstad) (Edms) Bpk 1970 (3) SA 429 (O).
3 Vorster v Herselman 1982 (4) SA 857 (O).
4 Roberts Construction Co Ltd v Dominion Earthworks (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 255 (A).
5 Roos v Engineering Fabricators (Edms) Bpk 1974 (3) SA 545 (A).
6 Imprefed (Pty) Ltd v National Transport Commission 1993 (3) SA 94 (A) 107.
7 ABSA Bank Limited v Janse van Rensburg and Another and a related matter [2013] JOL 29850 (WCC) at [15]; ABSA
Bank Limited v Nicholas and Another [2013] JOL 30256 (WCC) at [10].

B18.13 Documents A pleader who relies on a written document is required to do one of three things:1

. to annex the document on which he relies;

. to set forth the material portions of the document; or

. to refer to the material portions of the document.

Where a document is the very foundation of the cause of action or defence, it is good practice, and a legitimate and
perfectly proper method of pleading, to annex a copy of the document to it. If only portions of the document are
material, the pleader may either annex to or incorporate in the pleading the portions he alleges are material or set
out particulars sufficiently identifying the documents relied upon.2

In spite of this practical approach to the matter the court in Moosa and Others NNO v Hassam and Others NNO3
has held that if a party relies on a written contract as its cause of action that party has to obtain a copy of the
contract before issuing summons and has to attach a copy to the particulars of claim. A party is, however, entitled
to condonation if good cause is shown why the document could not have been attached.
1 Bantry Head Investments (Pty) Ltd v Murray and Stewart (Cape Town) (Pty) Ltd 1974 (2) SA 386 (C).
2 SAR&H v Deal Enterprises (Pty) Ltd 1975 (3) SA 944 (W).
3 2010 (2) SA 410 (KZP).

B18.14 Rule 18(8)

A party suing or bringing a claim in reconvention for divorce shall, where time, date
and place or any other person or persons are relevant or involved, give details
thereof in the relevant pleading.

B18.15 Rule 18(9)

A party claiming division, transfer or forfeiture of assets in divorce proceedings in

respect of a marriage out of community of property, shall give details of the grounds
on which he claims that he is entitled to such division, transfer or forfeiture.

B18.16 Divorce These sub­rules must be read in conjunction with rule 18(4).1
1 King v King 1971 (2) SA 630 (O).

Civil Procedure/ Civil Procedure in the Superior Courts/ Part B High Court/ UNIFORM RULE 18 RULES
RELATING TO PLEADING GENERALLY/ Damages

Damages

B18.17 Rule 18(10)

A plaintiff suing for damages shall set them out in such a manner as will enable the
defendant reasonably to assess the quantum thereof: Provided that a plaintiff suing
for damages for personal injury shall specify his date of birth, the nature and extent of
the injuries, and the nature, effects and duration of the disability alleged to give rise to
such damages, and shall as far as practicable state separately what amount, if any, is
claimed for­
(a) medical costs and hospital and other similar expenses and how these costs
and expenses are made up;
(b) pain and suffering, stating whether temporary or permanent and which injuries
caused it;
(c) disability in respect of­
(i) the earning of income (stating the earnings lost to date and how the
amount is made up and the estimated future loss and the nature of the
work the plaintiff will in future be able to do);
(ii) the enjoyment of amenities of life (giving particulars);
 and stating whether the disability concerned is temporary or permanent; and
(d) disfigurement, with a full description thereof and stating whether it is
temporary or permanent.

B18.18 Rule 18(11)

A plaintiff suing for damages resulting from the death of another shall state the date
of birth of the deceased as well as that of any person claiming damages as a result of
the death.

B18.19 Damages A plaintiff who sues for damages must set them out in such a manner as will enable the
defendant reasonably to assess their quantum.1 The object is that the plaintiff should give the defendant
reasonably sufficient information to enable him to assess the quantum of the claim and to make a reasonable
tender or payment into court which, upon acceptance, will bring the litigation to an end.2 As formulated, the rule
applies only to a claim for damages and not to a claim for compensation created by statute.3 But that does not
mean that in those cases there should not be compliance with rule 18(4).

A party is as a general rule not obliged to furnish particulars of general damages,4 but a defendant is entitled in
regard to special damages to be told in what manner they have been arrived at.5

A litigant who is faced with a claim for damages is entitled to sufficient data to enable him to make a realistic
assessment of what should be tendered.6 The rules entitle the defendant to information which will enable him to
make his own assessment. He is not intended to be a passive party who merely checks what the plaintiff says. He
has a duty to work out what is a reasonable assessment of the damages sustained by the plaintiff.7

A plaintiff may annex relevant expert reports, but each case must turn on its own facts as to whether the reports
constitute proper compliance with this sub­rule as well as rule 18(4).8
1 Custom Credit Corp (Pty) Ltd v Shembe 1972 (3) SA 462 ( A ) ; Rondalia Versekeringskorp van SA Bpk v Mavundla
1969 (2) SA 23 (N).
2 Durban Picture Frame Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeena 1976 (1) SA 329 (D); and see Cape Diving and Salvage (Pty) Ltd v Viljoen
1979 (1) SA 871 (C).
3 Workmen's Compensation Commissioner v Rondalia Assurance Corp of SA Ltd 1 9 6 9 ( 3 ) S A 7 3 0 ( N ) ; Rondalia
Versekeringskorp van SA Bpk v Die Ongevallekommissaris 1968 (4) SA 755 (N).
4 Durban Picture Frame Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeena supra; Reid v Royal Insurance Co Ltd 1951 (1) SA 713 (T); The Citizen (Pvt)
Ltd v The Art Printing Works Ltd 1957 (3) SA 382 (SR); Simmonds v White 1980 (1) SA 755 (C).
5 Durban Picture Frame Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeena supra; Margau v King 1948 (1) SA 124 (W); Thompson v Barclays Bank DCO
1965 (1) SA 365 (W). Different heads of damages such as earnings lost to date and the loss of future earnings should be
set out separately: Carstens NO v Southern Insurance Association Ltd 1985 (3) SA 1010 (C) 1017; Media 24 Ltd and
Others v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd (Avusa Media Ltd and Others as amici curiae) [2011] 4 All SA 9 (SCA).
6 SA Mutual Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd v Alberts 1976 (3) SA 612 (SE); Cete v Standard and General Insurance Co
Ltd 1973 (4) SA 349 (W).
7 Cete v Standard and General Insurance Co Ltd supra; Thonar v Union and SWA Insurance Co Ltd 1981 (3) SA 545 (W).
8 Thonar v Union and SWA Insurance Co Ltd supra; Minister van Wet en Orde v Jacobs supra. The procedure was
deprecated in Doyle v Sentraboer (Co­operative) Ltd 1993 (3) SA 176 (SE). But see Grindrod (Pty) Ltd v Delport
1997 (1) SA 342 (W) where it was held that r 18(4) and 18(10) perform different functions and are not related.

B18.20 Rule 18(12)

If a party fails to comply with any of the provisions of this rule, such pleading shall be
deemed to be an irregular step and the opposite party shall be entitled to act in
accordance with rule 30.

B18.21 Irregular proceedings If the formulation does not disclose any clear cause of action or if the statements
do not appear material to any particular cause of action, the pleading is an irregular step.1 A pleading may be
excipiable on the ground of vagueness even if it complies with the provisions of the rule.2 If a pleading both fails to
comply with rule 18 and is vague and embarrassing, the other party has a choice of remedies.3 The procedural
limitations set out in rule 30(2), such as the time limit, apply, 4 but non­compliance with the rule prima facie
establishes prejudice.5
1 Heugh v Gubb 1980 (1) SA 699 (C). Mkhize: In re Mbuyazi v The Premier of the Province of Kwazulu­Natal and Mbuyazi v
Mbonambi Community Development Trust (822/2013) [2014] ZASCA 204 (28 November 2014).
2 Absa Bank Ltd v Boksburg Transitional Local Council 1997 (2) SA 415 (W).
3 Sasol Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Sasol 1 v Electrical Repair Engineering (Pty) Ltd t/a LH Marthinusen 1992 (4) SA 466 (W).
4 Minister of Law and Order v Taylor NO 1990 (1) SA 165 (E).
5 Sasol Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Sasol supra 470H.