CIV3701 – Assignment 1 – Semester 2 (2025)
Due Date: 21 August 2025
Total Marks: 25
QUESTION 1
P has a claim against Y in the amount of R700 000 based on breach of contract
which occurred in Bloemfontein. P is an incola of Bloemfontein and Y is an incola
of Johannesburg.
(a) Explain why it will be inappropriate for P to use an ordinary application to
institute proceedings against Y. (2)
An ordinary application procedure is inappropriate because the dispute involves
material disputes of fact, especially in a breach of contract case where liability may
be contested. The ordinary application procedure is used where facts are not in dispute
and the matter can be resolved on affidavits. Since this claim is for a large monetary
amount (R700 000) and likely includes factual disputes, action proceedings (by way
of summons) are more appropriate.
(b) Explain why P can institute proceedings against Y in the Bloemfontein High
Court. (2)
P may institute proceedings in the Bloemfontein High Court because:
The cause of action (breach of contract) arose in Bloemfontein, satisfying the
jurisdictional link.
In terms of section 21(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, a court has
jurisdiction if either the cause of action arose within its area or the defendant
resides there.
, Even though Y resides in Johannesburg, the Bloemfontein court has jurisdiction
ratione loci delicti commissi (place where the delict or contract breach
occurred).
(c) Would your answer to (b) above differ if Y was a foreign peregrinus of the
Republic? (4)
Yes, it would differ. A foreign peregrinus is a person who neither resides in nor is
domiciled in South Africa. In such a case, for a South African court to have jurisdiction
over a foreign peregrinus:
The plaintiff (P) must be an incola of the court (which P is — incola of
Bloemfontein).
The cause of action must have arisen within the jurisdiction of the court
(which it did — Bloemfontein).
Thus, the Bloemfontein High Court will still have jurisdiction over a foreign
peregrinus defendant, provided these two jurisdictional links are satisfied. However,
attachment of property (jurisdictio in rem) might be required in some cases to
confirm jurisdiction, unless the defendant consents or appears voluntarily.
(d) Would your answer to (b) above differ if the claim related to the registration of
fixed property, and the property was situated in Pretoria? (2)
Yes, the answer would differ. In cases involving immovable property, such as
registration, transfer, or ownership, only the court in whose area the property is
situated has jurisdiction. This is jurisdiction ratione rei sitae. Therefore, if the
property is situated in Pretoria, only the Pretoria High Court would have jurisdiction,
not Bloemfontein.
Due Date: 21 August 2025
Total Marks: 25
QUESTION 1
P has a claim against Y in the amount of R700 000 based on breach of contract
which occurred in Bloemfontein. P is an incola of Bloemfontein and Y is an incola
of Johannesburg.
(a) Explain why it will be inappropriate for P to use an ordinary application to
institute proceedings against Y. (2)
An ordinary application procedure is inappropriate because the dispute involves
material disputes of fact, especially in a breach of contract case where liability may
be contested. The ordinary application procedure is used where facts are not in dispute
and the matter can be resolved on affidavits. Since this claim is for a large monetary
amount (R700 000) and likely includes factual disputes, action proceedings (by way
of summons) are more appropriate.
(b) Explain why P can institute proceedings against Y in the Bloemfontein High
Court. (2)
P may institute proceedings in the Bloemfontein High Court because:
The cause of action (breach of contract) arose in Bloemfontein, satisfying the
jurisdictional link.
In terms of section 21(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, a court has
jurisdiction if either the cause of action arose within its area or the defendant
resides there.
, Even though Y resides in Johannesburg, the Bloemfontein court has jurisdiction
ratione loci delicti commissi (place where the delict or contract breach
occurred).
(c) Would your answer to (b) above differ if Y was a foreign peregrinus of the
Republic? (4)
Yes, it would differ. A foreign peregrinus is a person who neither resides in nor is
domiciled in South Africa. In such a case, for a South African court to have jurisdiction
over a foreign peregrinus:
The plaintiff (P) must be an incola of the court (which P is — incola of
Bloemfontein).
The cause of action must have arisen within the jurisdiction of the court
(which it did — Bloemfontein).
Thus, the Bloemfontein High Court will still have jurisdiction over a foreign
peregrinus defendant, provided these two jurisdictional links are satisfied. However,
attachment of property (jurisdictio in rem) might be required in some cases to
confirm jurisdiction, unless the defendant consents or appears voluntarily.
(d) Would your answer to (b) above differ if the claim related to the registration of
fixed property, and the property was situated in Pretoria? (2)
Yes, the answer would differ. In cases involving immovable property, such as
registration, transfer, or ownership, only the court in whose area the property is
situated has jurisdiction. This is jurisdiction ratione rei sitae. Therefore, if the
property is situated in Pretoria, only the Pretoria High Court would have jurisdiction,
not Bloemfontein.
