Simon Says Advertising (Pty) Ltd v KG Family Holdings (Pty) Ltd

The plaintiff instituted action against the defendant based on an initial agreement and a subsequent retainer agreement in terms of which the defendant would request goods and services from the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged breaches of these agreements, mainly non-payment or underpayment, and claimed an amount of R196 487.00, together with alternative claims for damages and cancellation. The defendant filed a plea denying liability, alleging the plaintiff’s non-performance, and initially counterclaimed for overpayment. The counterclaim was later withdrawn. The plaintiff requested trial particulars under Rule 21. After persistent non-compliance by the defendant, the plaintiff obtained an order compelling delivery of trial particulars within 10 days. The defendant failed to comply with that order, prompting the present application to strike out the defendant’s plea.

The defendant was ordered to furnish a response to the plaintiff’s request for trial particulars by 3 December 2024. Failing compliance, the defendant was directed to appear on 5 December 2024 to show cause why its plea should not be struck out and judgment granted against it. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application on the attorney-and-client scale.

The case reinforces the binding nature of court orders and the consequences of wilful non-compliance with procedural rules. It illustrates the High Court’s discretion under Rule 21(4) to impose severe procedural sanctions, including striking out a defence, while also demonstrating a balanced approach to procedural fairness. The judgment is significant for its discussion of trial particulars, contemptuous litigation conduct, and the court’s inherent and rule-based powers to control abuse of process.