The respondent, an incola of the North Gauteng High Court, alleged that in November 2006 at Irene, Gauteng, he orally concluded an agreement with the appellant, a peregrinus resident in the United Kingdom, in terms of which the appellant undertook to procure and transfer 5% of the issued shares in a Mauritian company to him. The respondent issued summons in the North Gauteng High Court claiming delivery of the shares, alternatively payment of their value (estimated at R64 million) if delivery failed. The summons was served on the appellant while he was temporarily in South Africa. The appellant raised a special plea disputing the High Court’s jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the plea and held it had jurisdiction, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. During argument in the SCA, the respondent sought and obtained an amendment to his particulars of claim, abandoning the claim for delivery of shares and confining the action to damages following cancellation of the agreement.
The amendment to the particulars of claim was granted; the order of the North Gauteng High Court was set aside; and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs in the court below and on appeal, including the costs of two counsel where employed.
The case illustrates the application of the doctrine of effectiveness in determining jurisdiction in South African law and highlights the importance of the nature of the relief claimed—particularly the distinction between claims for specific performance and monetary claims against peregrini. Although marked as having no precedential significance, it provides practical guidance on how jurisdictional disputes may be resolved or rendered moot through amendment of pleadings.