Last reviewed: September 2026.
This guide covers South African law and procedure. It is general information, not legal advice – see the note at the end.
Short overview:
The High Court is where civil claims of R400,000 or more are heard or more are heard or more are heard, along with a specific set of matters no other court can handle regardless of value; wills, mental capacity, urgent interdicts, and reviews of administrative or constitutional action among them.
Self-representation is legally possible here, but the formality of the process makes it genuinely demanding, and it's worth being honest about that before deciding to go it alone.
Structure and Jurisdiction
The High Court of South Africa is organised into nine provincial divisions, each with a main seat and, in several provinces, one or more local seats with concurrent jurisdiction over part of the province:
Division | Main seat |
Eastern Cape | Makhanda (Grahamstown), with local seats in Gqeberha, Mthatha, and Bhisho |
Free State | Bloemfontein |
Gauteng | Pretoria, with a local seat in Johannesburg |
KwaZulu-Natal | Pietermaritzburg, with a local seat in Durban |
Limpopo | Polokwane, with a local seat in Thohoyandou |
Mpumalanga | Mbombela (Nelspruit), with a local seat in Middelburg |
North West | Mahikeng |
Northern Cape | Kimberley |
Western Cape | Cape Town |
Each division has general civil jurisdiction over its area, with essentially unlimited monetary jurisdiction.
Certain matters go to the High Court regardless of the amount involved, including disputes over the validity of a will, a person's mental capacity, most company law and insolvency proceedings, urgent interdicts, and reviews of administrative or executive decisions.
Two very different kinds of case:
Understanding this distinction matters more than almost anything else if you're navigating the High Court:
1) Action proceedings:
Used where the facts are genuinely in dispute and need to be tested through evidence. This follows a summons-based process broadly similar in shape to the Magistrate's Court – particulars of claim, a notice of intention to defend, a plea, discovery of documents, and ultimately a trial with witnesses giving oral evidence and being cross-examined – but with more extensive procedural requirements and, often, expert evidence.
2) Application proceedings:
Used where there's no real dispute about the facts, or where urgency doesn't allow time for a full trial – an interdict to stop something happening immediately, a review of a decision, or many company and insolvency matters.
Instead of pleadings and a trial, the parties exchange affidavits: the applicant's founding affidavit, the respondent's answering affidavit, and the applicant's replying affidavit, followed by argument based on those papers rather than oral witness testimony.
Under the Uniform Rules of Court, the ordinary timeline for an opposed application is:
5 days to file a notice of intention to oppose after being served
15 days thereafter to file an answering affidavit
10 days after that for the applicant's replying affidavit
Urgent applications:
Depart from this timeline entirely, the court can abridge the normal periods and dispense with formalities, but the applicant carries the burden of explaining clearly why the matter genuinely can't wait for the ordinary process.
Legal representation and Right of Appearance:
Both attorneys and advocates may appear in the High Court, but attorneys need a specific right of appearance certificate to do so; generally requiring at least three years of continuous practice (reducible through an approved trial advocacy training programme) and an LLB degree.
Advocates have automatic rights of appearance. This is a more formal requirement than exists at Magistrate's Court level, and it reflects the seriousness with which the High Court treats its own procedure.
Costs:
The general rule is that costs follow the result:
The losing party typically pays a contribution toward the winning party's legal costs, usually on the ordinary "party-and-party" scale.
In cases involving bad faith, dishonesty, or particularly unreasonable conduct, a court can order costs on the higher "attorney-and-client" scale, which covers a much larger portion of the winning party's actual legal spend.
This is one of the sharpest practical differences from the Small Claims Court and CSOS, where costs generally aren't awarded against either side.
A Candid look at Self-Representation here:
You have a constitutional right to represent yourself in the High Court, and people genuinely do.
Most commonly, when opposing an application brought against them (an eviction, a summary judgment application) or bringing a straightforward, well-documented urgent matter.
But this is a meaningfully bigger undertaking than the Magistrate's Court:
1) The Uniform Rules of Court are technical and unforgiving:
Affidavits must be properly commissioned, applications must follow strict formatting and procedural requirements, and missing a timeline can effectively lose the matter regardless of its merits.
2) Heads of argument:
A structured written summary of your legal argument and the authorities supporting it, are typically required before a hearing, and drafting these well requires genuine familiarity with legal reasoning and case law.
3) Opposing counsel is very often present:
Particularly in commercial and higher-value matters, creating a real disadvantage for an unrepresented party in a fully adversarial hearing.
If you're facing a High Court matter – whether bringing one or defending one – at minimum, getting an attorney to review your papers or advise you on strategy before a hearing is worth serious consideration, even if you intend to appear yourself.
The cost of that advice is almost always smaller than the cost of an avoidable procedural loss.
Common Mistakes
- Confusing action and application procedure:
Or using the wrong one for the situation, this alone can derail a matter before its merits are even considered.
- Missing the notice of intention to oppose or answering affidavit deadlines:
Which can result in an unopposed order being granted against you.
- Treating an urgent application casually:
Courts scrutinise claimed urgency closely, and a poorly justified urgent application can be struck from the roll for lack of genuine urgency, wasting time and costs.
- Filing an affidavit that isn't properly commissioned:
Or doesn't meet the formal requirements, a technical error that can genuinely derail a matter.
- Underestimating the cost exposure:
Because costs generally follow the result, losing a High Court matter can mean paying a meaningful contribution toward the other side's legal fees, not just your own.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Quick Reference Glossary
- Division – one of the nine provincial High Courts, each with its own main and (where applicable) local seats.
- Action proceedings – the summons-and-trial process used for disputes involving contested facts.
- Application proceedings – the affidavit-based process used where facts aren't genuinely in dispute, or where urgency requires a faster route.
- Founding, answering, and replying affidavits – the three-stage exchange of sworn statements in application proceedings.
- Heads of argument – a written summary of legal argument and supporting authority, typically required ahead of a hearing.
- Costs order – a court's ruling on who must pay legal costs, and on what scale.
This guide provides general information about High Court structure and procedure in South Africa as at the review date above and is not a substitute for professional legal advice.
Given the complexity and cost exposure of High Court litigation, obtaining advice from a qualified attorney before proceeding – whether you intend to be represented or not – is strongly recommended.
