UTi South Africa (Proprietary) Limited v Triple Option Trading 29 CC

UTi South Africa (Pty) Ltd sued Triple Option Trading 29 CC in the Germiston Magistrates’ Court in March 2007 for payment of R274 786.70, being the outstanding balance for customs clearing, forwarding and export agency services rendered and disbursements incurred between January 2005 and May 2006. The claim was based on a series of agreements concluded directly between UTi and the respondent, as reflected in invoices. Due to confusion arising from superfluous averments and documentation, UTi later amended its particulars of claim in 2009 to allege that the agreements were originally concluded between the respondent and Pyramid Freight (Pty) Ltd, whose business UTi had purchased. The respondent raised special pleas that the amendment introduced a new cause of action which had prescribed, and that the magistrates’ court lacked jurisdiction.

The appeal was upheld with costs and the cross-appeal was dismissed with costs. The order of the magistrates’ court upholding the special pleas of prescription and jurisdiction was substituted with an order dismissing both special pleas with costs.

The case clarifies South African law on prescription in the context of amended pleadings, confirming that an amendment does not trigger prescription if it does not introduce a new cause of action or enforce a different right. It also provides guidance on jurisdiction clauses and confirms that multiple claims based on separate invoices may fall within the magistrates’ court’s jurisdiction.