CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Cairns Foods (Pvt) Ltd v Reddy Cash and Carry (Pvt) Ltd

CitationHH 307/13, HC 1703/13
JurisdictionZW
Area of Law
Civil ProcedureCommercial Law

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant on 4 March 2013 seeking payment of US$10,996.26 for goods sold and delivered to the defendant at its instance and request. The defendant entered appearance on 13 March 2013 and filed a special plea in abatement raising prescription, alleging that the cause of action arose in December 2009 or January 2010. The defendant simultaneously pleaded over to the merits of the claim. On 30 April 2013, the same day the plea was filed, the defendant applied for the special plea to be set down for hearing. There was no evidence of compliance with Rule 138(a) and (b) of the High Court Rules, which require consent or application within specified time periods before a special plea can be set down separately from trial.

Legal Issues

  • Whether a special plea can be set down for hearing separately before trial where the party raising the special plea has pleaded over to the merits
  • Whether there was compliance with the procedural requirements of Rule 138 of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules 1971 for setting down a special plea

Judicial Outcome

1. The special plea is hereby stood down until the trial date. 2. The costs shall be costs in the cause.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a defendant files a special plea and pleads over to the merits of a claim, and there is no compliance with the consent or application requirements under Rule 138(a) and (b) of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules 1971, the special plea cannot be set down for hearing separately before trial but must be stood down until the trial date in accordance with Rule 138(c).

Obiter Dicta

The court did not make substantive observations beyond the procedural ruling. The judgment is strictly focused on the application of Rule 138 without addressing the merits of the prescription defense or the underlying claim for payment.

Legal Significance

This case reinforces the procedural requirements for setting down special pleas in Zimbabwean civil procedure. It emphasizes that parties must strictly comply with Rule 138 of the High Court Rules 1971, and that where a party has pleaded over to the merits after raising a special plea, and there is no consent or timely application to set down the special plea separately, the special plea must be heard at trial rather than as a preliminary matter. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural compliance in civil litigation.

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Pretorius v Trustees of Ponders End Body Corporate and Earth Zone PropertiesCSOS 7586/GP/22 (Adjudication Order, 03 June 2024)
    Appeal From

    Mathonsi J ruled on a procedural issue regarding the defendant's special plea in abatement based on prescription. The court found that the defendant had…

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in

Explore More Cases

More Civil Procedure cases

  • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19
  • Aaron Kundiona v Masvingo Cooperative Union and Messenger of CourtHMA 05-20; HC 25-20

More Zimbabwe cases

  • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
  • (1) Elias Hwenga (2) Mercy Hwenga (3) Kenneth (4) Prince Nyemba (5) A. P. Phillip and Company (Private) Limited v FBC Bank LimitedJudgment No. SC 36/21, Civil Appeal No. SC 204/16
  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
  • 1. Tapera Sengweni v The Law Society of Zimbabwe 2. Augustine Runesu Chizikani v The Law Society of ZimbabweHH 706-19, LPDT 8/18 and LPDT 27/18
  • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The State
SC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19