Samancor Chrome Limited v Rham Equipment (Pty) Ltd

The parties concluded a contract around 2000 for the supply of vehicular mining equipment by Rham Equipment (Pty) Ltd to Samancor Chrome Limited. The precise nature of the contract was disputed: it was variously alleged to be an instalment sale, a lease, or a lease coupled with a maintenance obligation. After cancellation of the contract in 2002, Rham instituted action in 2004 claiming damages. In 2009 Rham sought to amend its particulars of claim to introduce an additional damages claim based on breach of an alleged maintenance agreement. The amendment was refused by Blieden J on the basis that it introduced a new claim which had prescribed. Years later, when Rham delivered fresh particulars of claim, Samancor pleaded that the agreement was a single indivisible full maintenance lease. Rham responded by raising res judicata/issue estoppel, contending that Blieden J had already determined that there was more than one contract or a composite contract. The High Court upheld Rham’s plea, prompting this appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing Rham’s special plea of res judicata with costs.

The case clarifies the limits of res judicata and issue estoppel in South African civil procedure, particularly in relation to interlocutory rulings such as refusals of amendments. It confirms that courts must examine the context, relief sought, and issues actually decided, and that surplus or incidental remarks in a judgment do not create binding determinations capable of founding issue estoppel.