Vorster v Clothing City (Pty) Ltd

In September 2015 the appellant, Ms Magdalena Josina Vorster, slipped and fell while shopping at the respondent’s premises, Clothing City (Pty) Ltd, and sustained injuries. She instituted a delictual damages claim in the Regional Court. Initially, she claimed R255 856.40. Before trial, the parties settled the merits on a 75/25 apportionment in her favour, which was made an order of court, with quantum postponed. Ms Vorster later amended her particulars of claim, increasing the gross damages to R531 225.02, but after applying the agreed 25% apportionment, claimed a net amount of R398 418.77. Clothing City raised a special plea that the gross amount exceeded the Regional Court’s monetary jurisdiction of R400 000. The Regional Court upheld the special plea, and the High Court dismissed Ms Vorster’s appeal. She then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order upholding the appeal from the Regional Court, dismissing the defendant’s special plea with costs, and referring the matter back to the Regional Court for determination of damages.

This judgment clarifies that, for purposes of the monetary jurisdiction of magistrates’ and regional courts, the decisive factor is the amount claimed in the pleadings, not the underlying quantum that may be assessed before apportionment or reduction. It confirms the correct application of ss 29(1)(g) and 37(2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act and prevents litigants from being non-suited on overly formalistic jurisdictional grounds, thereby promoting access to justice.