University of South Africa Universiteit van Suid-Afrika
College of Law Department of Procedural Law
⋄ ⋄
CIV3701
Civil Procedure
Assignment 1 Semester 1, 2026
⋄ ⋄
Module: CIV3701 Civil Procedure
Assignment: Assignment 1
Semester: Semester 1, 2026
Due Date: March 2026
Institution: University of South Africa (UNISA)
Department: College of Law
Style: APA 7th Edition
Submitted in partial ful
lment of the requirements for CIV3701 University of South Africa
,UNISA | CIV3701 Civil Procedure Assignment 1 Semester 1, 2026
Contents
1 Question 1: Local Peregrinus vs Foreign Peregrinus 3
1.1 1.1 Distinction Between Local Peregrinus and Foreign Peregrinus . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Question 2: Process vs Pleadings 4
2.1 2.1 Distinction Between Process and Pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Question 3: Magistrates' Court Jurisdiction C vs D (Software Contract) 5
3.1 3.1 Will Any Magistrates' Court Have Jurisdiction to Compel D to Install the Soft-
ware? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 3.2 Would the Answer Change if C Claims R400 000 in Damages? . . . . . . . . . 6
4 Question 4: Section 167 of the Constitution The Constitutional Court 8
4.1 4.1 Discussion of the Statement on the Constitutional Court . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5 Question 5: Pre-Trial Conference in the Magistrates' Courts 10
5.1 5.1 Purpose of the Pre-Trial Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6 Question 6: Variation of Judgment Under Uniform Rule 42 11
6.1 6.1 Procedure for Variation of Judgment Under Uniform Rule 42 . . . . . . . . . 11
7 Question 7: P's Claim Against Y R700 000 Breach of Contract 12
7.1 7.1 Why P Cannot Use an Ordinary Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2 7.2 Why P Can Institute Proceedings in the Bloemfontein High Court . . . . . . 12
7.3 7.3 If Y Were a Foreign Peregrinus of the Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.4 7.4 If the Claim Related to Fixed Property Situated in Pretoria . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 Question 8: J's Divorce from T Domiciled in Lesotho 15
8.1 8.1 Will the Pretoria High Court Have Jurisdiction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2 8.2 Service of Summons on T in Lesotho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9 Question 9: B's Claim Against C for Motor Vehicle Collision 17
9.1 9.1 Correct Type of Summons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2 9.2 Jurisdiction of the Durban Magistrates' Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.3 9.3 Why C May Not Make Discovery at This Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.4 9.4 B's Liability for Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Page 1 of 33
,UNISA | CIV3701 Civil Procedure Assignment 1 Semester 1, 2026
10 Question 10: Methods to Reform Civil Procedure 20
10.1 10.1 Three Methods to Reform Civil Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11 Question 11: The Doctrine of Eectiveness 21
11.1 11.1 The Doctrine of Eectiveness Explained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12 Question 12: B vs A Motor Vehicle Collision, R420 000 Claim 22
12.1 12.1 Regional Magistrates' Court Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.2 12.2 If A Admits Owing R20 000 for Services Rendered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13 Question 13: Audi Alteram Partem in Ordinary Application Procedure 24
13.1 13.1 Application of the Audi Alteram Partem Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
14 Question 14: X vs Y Defamation, Application Procedure 26
14.1 14.1 Why X Cannot Use an Ordinary Application to Sue Y for Defamation . . . 26
15 Question 15: Summary Judgment and Settlement 27
15.1 15.1 If Y Gives Notice of Intention to Defend Within the Dies Induciae . . . . . . 27
15.2 15.2 How Y Can End the Litigation Quickly Without Paying the Full Amount . . 28
16 Question 16: Pre-Trial Conference Under Uniform Rule 37 29
16.1 16.1 Purpose of the Pre-Trial Conference Under Uniform Rule 37 . . . . . . . . . 29
17 Question 17: Evidence from a Witness Unable to Attend Trial 30
17.1 17.1 Two Methods for Placing Evidence Before Court When a Witness Cannot At-
tend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
17.1.1 Method 1: Commission (Letters of Request / Examination on Commission) 30
17.1.2 Method 2: Deposition or A
davit (Section 34 of the Civil Proceedings Ev-
idence Act) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Reference List 32
Page 2 of 33
, UNISA | CIV3701 Civil Procedure Assignment 1 Semester 1, 2026
Question 1: Local Peregrinus vs Foreign Peregrinus
1.1 Distinction Between Local Peregrinus and Foreign Peregrinus
In South African civil procedure, the term peregrinus refers to a person who is not an incola
of the court's jurisdiction. The distinction between a local peregrinus and a foreign peregrinus
turns on the person's connection to the Republic of South Africa as a whole (Harms, 2020).
Key Distinction
An incola is a person who is domiciled or ordinarily resident within the court's area of
peregrinus
jurisdiction. A is someone who is not so domiciled or resident.
Local peregrinus: A local peregrinus is a person who, while being a peregrinus of the par-
ticular court before which proceedings are instituted (i.e., not resident or domiciled in that
court's area), is nonetheless an incola of the Republic of South Africa as a whole. In other
words, this person is domiciled or resident somewhere else in South Africa (Bernstein & Van
der Merwe, 2021). For example, if a defendant is domiciled in Cape Town and is sued in the
Gauteng High Court, that defendant is a local peregrinus of the Gauteng division but remains
an incola of South Africa.
Foreign peregrinus: A foreign peregrinus, by contrast, is a person who is neither domiciled
nor resident anywhere within the borders of the Republic of South Africa. This person has no
legal foothold in the country at all (Carnelley & Nkosi, 2022). For example, a French citizen
who lives and works in Paris and has no South African domicile or residence would be a for-
eign peregrinus if sued in any South African court.
Practical signi
cance: This distinction matters because dierent rules apply regarding the
attachment of property to found or con
rm jurisdiction. Where a defendant is a foreign pere-
grinus, South African courts may only exercise jurisdiction if the defendant has property in
South Africa that can be attached ad fundandam jurisdictionem (to establish jurisdiction) or
ad con
rmandam jurisdictionem (to con
rm jurisdiction), or if the defendant submits to the
court's jurisdiction (Harms, 2020; Gallo Africa Ltd v Sting Music (Pty) Ltd 2010 (6) SA 329
(SCA)).
Page 3 of 33
College of Law Department of Procedural Law
⋄ ⋄
CIV3701
Civil Procedure
Assignment 1 Semester 1, 2026
⋄ ⋄
Module: CIV3701 Civil Procedure
Assignment: Assignment 1
Semester: Semester 1, 2026
Due Date: March 2026
Institution: University of South Africa (UNISA)
Department: College of Law
Style: APA 7th Edition
Submitted in partial ful
lment of the requirements for CIV3701 University of South Africa
,UNISA | CIV3701 Civil Procedure Assignment 1 Semester 1, 2026
Contents
1 Question 1: Local Peregrinus vs Foreign Peregrinus 3
1.1 1.1 Distinction Between Local Peregrinus and Foreign Peregrinus . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Question 2: Process vs Pleadings 4
2.1 2.1 Distinction Between Process and Pleadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Question 3: Magistrates' Court Jurisdiction C vs D (Software Contract) 5
3.1 3.1 Will Any Magistrates' Court Have Jurisdiction to Compel D to Install the Soft-
ware? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 3.2 Would the Answer Change if C Claims R400 000 in Damages? . . . . . . . . . 6
4 Question 4: Section 167 of the Constitution The Constitutional Court 8
4.1 4.1 Discussion of the Statement on the Constitutional Court . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5 Question 5: Pre-Trial Conference in the Magistrates' Courts 10
5.1 5.1 Purpose of the Pre-Trial Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6 Question 6: Variation of Judgment Under Uniform Rule 42 11
6.1 6.1 Procedure for Variation of Judgment Under Uniform Rule 42 . . . . . . . . . 11
7 Question 7: P's Claim Against Y R700 000 Breach of Contract 12
7.1 7.1 Why P Cannot Use an Ordinary Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2 7.2 Why P Can Institute Proceedings in the Bloemfontein High Court . . . . . . 12
7.3 7.3 If Y Were a Foreign Peregrinus of the Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.4 7.4 If the Claim Related to Fixed Property Situated in Pretoria . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 Question 8: J's Divorce from T Domiciled in Lesotho 15
8.1 8.1 Will the Pretoria High Court Have Jurisdiction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2 8.2 Service of Summons on T in Lesotho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9 Question 9: B's Claim Against C for Motor Vehicle Collision 17
9.1 9.1 Correct Type of Summons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2 9.2 Jurisdiction of the Durban Magistrates' Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.3 9.3 Why C May Not Make Discovery at This Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.4 9.4 B's Liability for Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Page 1 of 33
,UNISA | CIV3701 Civil Procedure Assignment 1 Semester 1, 2026
10 Question 10: Methods to Reform Civil Procedure 20
10.1 10.1 Three Methods to Reform Civil Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11 Question 11: The Doctrine of Eectiveness 21
11.1 11.1 The Doctrine of Eectiveness Explained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12 Question 12: B vs A Motor Vehicle Collision, R420 000 Claim 22
12.1 12.1 Regional Magistrates' Court Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.2 12.2 If A Admits Owing R20 000 for Services Rendered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13 Question 13: Audi Alteram Partem in Ordinary Application Procedure 24
13.1 13.1 Application of the Audi Alteram Partem Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
14 Question 14: X vs Y Defamation, Application Procedure 26
14.1 14.1 Why X Cannot Use an Ordinary Application to Sue Y for Defamation . . . 26
15 Question 15: Summary Judgment and Settlement 27
15.1 15.1 If Y Gives Notice of Intention to Defend Within the Dies Induciae . . . . . . 27
15.2 15.2 How Y Can End the Litigation Quickly Without Paying the Full Amount . . 28
16 Question 16: Pre-Trial Conference Under Uniform Rule 37 29
16.1 16.1 Purpose of the Pre-Trial Conference Under Uniform Rule 37 . . . . . . . . . 29
17 Question 17: Evidence from a Witness Unable to Attend Trial 30
17.1 17.1 Two Methods for Placing Evidence Before Court When a Witness Cannot At-
tend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
17.1.1 Method 1: Commission (Letters of Request / Examination on Commission) 30
17.1.2 Method 2: Deposition or A
davit (Section 34 of the Civil Proceedings Ev-
idence Act) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Reference List 32
Page 2 of 33
, UNISA | CIV3701 Civil Procedure Assignment 1 Semester 1, 2026
Question 1: Local Peregrinus vs Foreign Peregrinus
1.1 Distinction Between Local Peregrinus and Foreign Peregrinus
In South African civil procedure, the term peregrinus refers to a person who is not an incola
of the court's jurisdiction. The distinction between a local peregrinus and a foreign peregrinus
turns on the person's connection to the Republic of South Africa as a whole (Harms, 2020).
Key Distinction
An incola is a person who is domiciled or ordinarily resident within the court's area of
peregrinus
jurisdiction. A is someone who is not so domiciled or resident.
Local peregrinus: A local peregrinus is a person who, while being a peregrinus of the par-
ticular court before which proceedings are instituted (i.e., not resident or domiciled in that
court's area), is nonetheless an incola of the Republic of South Africa as a whole. In other
words, this person is domiciled or resident somewhere else in South Africa (Bernstein & Van
der Merwe, 2021). For example, if a defendant is domiciled in Cape Town and is sued in the
Gauteng High Court, that defendant is a local peregrinus of the Gauteng division but remains
an incola of South Africa.
Foreign peregrinus: A foreign peregrinus, by contrast, is a person who is neither domiciled
nor resident anywhere within the borders of the Republic of South Africa. This person has no
legal foothold in the country at all (Carnelley & Nkosi, 2022). For example, a French citizen
who lives and works in Paris and has no South African domicile or residence would be a for-
eign peregrinus if sued in any South African court.
Practical signi
cance: This distinction matters because dierent rules apply regarding the
attachment of property to found or con
rm jurisdiction. Where a defendant is a foreign pere-
grinus, South African courts may only exercise jurisdiction if the defendant has property in
South Africa that can be attached ad fundandam jurisdictionem (to establish jurisdiction) or
ad con
rmandam jurisdictionem (to con
rm jurisdiction), or if the defendant submits to the
court's jurisdiction (Harms, 2020; Gallo Africa Ltd v Sting Music (Pty) Ltd 2010 (6) SA 329
(SCA)).
Page 3 of 33
