CIV3701 EXAM PREP QUESTIONS AND 100%
CORRECT ANSWERS A+ RATED
Assignment 1: Semester 1
Question 1
X has a claim against Z in the amount of R600 000 based on breach of contract which
occurred in Cape Town. X is an incola of Cape Town and Z is an incola of Pretoria. With
these facts in mind, answer the following questions. Give full reasons for your answers.
(a) Explain why it will be inappropriate for X to use an ordinary application to institute
proceedings against Z. (2)
When legislation or the rules of court neither prescribe nor prohibit the use of application proceedings, the
final test to apply is whether there is a material dispute of fact. If there is
a material dispute of fact (or can be reasonably anticipated), the use of application
proceedings is inappropriate and will normally be penalised by way of an adverse costs
order. In the present matter, use of the application procedure is clearly inappropriate.
On the given facts, a breach of contract case involves a material dispute of fact. Since such a
dispute can only be resolved by hearing oral evidence, combined summons will be appropriate.
See study guide unit 12.6.2 and 12.6.3. and Pete et al 145–149.
,(b) Explain why X can institute proceedings against Z in the Cape Town High Court. (2)
In regard to a claim relating to a contract, the court in whose area of jurisdiction the contract was
concluded or where the contract was to be performed, either in whole or in part will have
jurisdiction. This is known as the exercise of jurisdiction ratione contractus. (Under common law,
this falls within the ambit of ratione rei gestae).
On the given facts, the breach of contract occurred in Cape Town, therefore, the Western Cape
High Court, Cape Town will have jurisdiction to institutes the proceedings ratione contractus. See
study guide unit 6.1 and 8.2.
, (c) Would your answer to (b) above differ if Z was a foreign peregrinus of the
Republic? (4)
Where the defendant is a peregrinus of the whole Republic (foreign peregrinus), a South African
court will exercise jurisdiction over such a person only after attachment of his or her property has
taken place, attachment ad confirmandam jurisdictionem (requiring the cause of action to have
occurred within the particular court’s area of jurisdiction apart from attachment).
On the given facts, the defendant is a peregrinus of the whole Republic, the cause of action
(breach) occurred in Cape Town and there is no attachable property within the
Republic, especially within the Cape Town area of jurisdiction. In this instance it is
irrelevant whether the plaintiff is an incola or peregrinus of the court. The attachment
confirms or strengthens the partial or imperfect jurisdiction that the court has by reasons of the fact
that the cause of action arose within its area. Therefore, the Western Cape High Court Local
Division, Cape Town will not have jurisdiction on the basis of attachment ad confirmandum, since
there is no attachable property within the Republic, especially in the Cape Town area of
jurisdiction. See study guide unit 8.4 and Pete et al 109–112
(d) Would your answer to (b) above differ if the claim related to the registration of fixed
property, and the property was situated in Johannesburg? (2)
In regard to a claim relating to immovable property, the court where the immovable property is
situated has exclusive jurisdiction in actions to determine the title to immovable property or the
transfer of property. This is known as the exercise of jurisdiction ratione rei sitae.
On the given facts, the property is situated in Johannesburg. Therefore, the Johannesburg High
CORRECT ANSWERS A+ RATED
Assignment 1: Semester 1
Question 1
X has a claim against Z in the amount of R600 000 based on breach of contract which
occurred in Cape Town. X is an incola of Cape Town and Z is an incola of Pretoria. With
these facts in mind, answer the following questions. Give full reasons for your answers.
(a) Explain why it will be inappropriate for X to use an ordinary application to institute
proceedings against Z. (2)
When legislation or the rules of court neither prescribe nor prohibit the use of application proceedings, the
final test to apply is whether there is a material dispute of fact. If there is
a material dispute of fact (or can be reasonably anticipated), the use of application
proceedings is inappropriate and will normally be penalised by way of an adverse costs
order. In the present matter, use of the application procedure is clearly inappropriate.
On the given facts, a breach of contract case involves a material dispute of fact. Since such a
dispute can only be resolved by hearing oral evidence, combined summons will be appropriate.
See study guide unit 12.6.2 and 12.6.3. and Pete et al 145–149.
,(b) Explain why X can institute proceedings against Z in the Cape Town High Court. (2)
In regard to a claim relating to a contract, the court in whose area of jurisdiction the contract was
concluded or where the contract was to be performed, either in whole or in part will have
jurisdiction. This is known as the exercise of jurisdiction ratione contractus. (Under common law,
this falls within the ambit of ratione rei gestae).
On the given facts, the breach of contract occurred in Cape Town, therefore, the Western Cape
High Court, Cape Town will have jurisdiction to institutes the proceedings ratione contractus. See
study guide unit 6.1 and 8.2.
, (c) Would your answer to (b) above differ if Z was a foreign peregrinus of the
Republic? (4)
Where the defendant is a peregrinus of the whole Republic (foreign peregrinus), a South African
court will exercise jurisdiction over such a person only after attachment of his or her property has
taken place, attachment ad confirmandam jurisdictionem (requiring the cause of action to have
occurred within the particular court’s area of jurisdiction apart from attachment).
On the given facts, the defendant is a peregrinus of the whole Republic, the cause of action
(breach) occurred in Cape Town and there is no attachable property within the
Republic, especially within the Cape Town area of jurisdiction. In this instance it is
irrelevant whether the plaintiff is an incola or peregrinus of the court. The attachment
confirms or strengthens the partial or imperfect jurisdiction that the court has by reasons of the fact
that the cause of action arose within its area. Therefore, the Western Cape High Court Local
Division, Cape Town will not have jurisdiction on the basis of attachment ad confirmandum, since
there is no attachable property within the Republic, especially in the Cape Town area of
jurisdiction. See study guide unit 8.4 and Pete et al 109–112
(d) Would your answer to (b) above differ if the claim related to the registration of fixed
property, and the property was situated in Johannesburg? (2)
In regard to a claim relating to immovable property, the court where the immovable property is
situated has exclusive jurisdiction in actions to determine the title to immovable property or the
transfer of property. This is known as the exercise of jurisdiction ratione rei sitae.
On the given facts, the property is situated in Johannesburg. Therefore, the Johannesburg High
