CIV3701
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 21 AUGUST 2025
, Civil Procedure
QUESTION 1
(a) It would be inappropriate for P to use an ordinary application to institute
proceedings because the claim is based on a dispute of fact—namely, a breach of
contract—which typically requires oral evidence and cross-examination. Ordinary
applications (motion proceedings) are only suitable when there are no material
disputes of fact. Therefore, an action procedure (via summons) is more appropriate.
(b) P can institute proceedings in the Bloemfontein High Court because:
The cause of action (the breach of contract) occurred in Bloemfontein, giving
the court territorial jurisdiction.
Furthermore, P is an incola (a permanent resident) of Bloemfontein, giving the
court jurisdiction based on domicile.
(c) If Y was a foreign peregrinus (a person who is neither domiciled nor resident in
South Africa), the court would require both:
Jurisdiction over the person (Y must be present in the jurisdiction when
summons is served), and
Jurisdiction over the cause of action (which exists here, since the breach
occurred in Bloemfontein).
If Y is not physically present in the court’s jurisdiction when summons is
served, the Bloemfontein High Court may not have jurisdiction, unless Y
submits to the court’s jurisdiction.
(d) Yes, the answer would differ if the claim related to the registration of fixed
property situated in Pretoria. In such a case, only the court where the property is
situated (i.e., the Pretoria High Court) would have jurisdiction. This is because
matters related to immovable property fall under the lex situs rule (law of the place
where the property is located).
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 21 AUGUST 2025
, Civil Procedure
QUESTION 1
(a) It would be inappropriate for P to use an ordinary application to institute
proceedings because the claim is based on a dispute of fact—namely, a breach of
contract—which typically requires oral evidence and cross-examination. Ordinary
applications (motion proceedings) are only suitable when there are no material
disputes of fact. Therefore, an action procedure (via summons) is more appropriate.
(b) P can institute proceedings in the Bloemfontein High Court because:
The cause of action (the breach of contract) occurred in Bloemfontein, giving
the court territorial jurisdiction.
Furthermore, P is an incola (a permanent resident) of Bloemfontein, giving the
court jurisdiction based on domicile.
(c) If Y was a foreign peregrinus (a person who is neither domiciled nor resident in
South Africa), the court would require both:
Jurisdiction over the person (Y must be present in the jurisdiction when
summons is served), and
Jurisdiction over the cause of action (which exists here, since the breach
occurred in Bloemfontein).
If Y is not physically present in the court’s jurisdiction when summons is
served, the Bloemfontein High Court may not have jurisdiction, unless Y
submits to the court’s jurisdiction.
(d) Yes, the answer would differ if the claim related to the registration of fixed
property situated in Pretoria. In such a case, only the court where the property is
situated (i.e., the Pretoria High Court) would have jurisdiction. This is because
matters related to immovable property fall under the lex situs rule (law of the place
where the property is located).
