By Robin De Backer, Olivia Höll and Holly Joubert
A quick refresher for practitioners: The amendments to the Uniform Rules of Court that formalised class action procedure in South Africa took effect on 19 September 2025. Several months on, this piece revisits one of the most monumental key changes made to the Uniform Rules of Court in most recent years.
Background: Class Actions in South Africa – the Historical Legislative Gap
Class actions were first recognised in South Africa through the Interim Constitution twenty-five years ago, yet the area of law remained largely unregulated by statute (Broodryk T. Class Actions in South Africa: A Need for Certainty, 481 – 502). The legislative gaps compelled the judiciary to develop a framework for the deliberation of class action matters through case law (Broodryk T, 481 – 502). The courts were right to act, and their contribution was invaluable, but regulatory and procedural uncertainty persisted until the Rules Board moved to codify the position (Broodryk T, 481 – 502).
The amendments to the Uniform Rules of Court, published in the Government Gazette in August 2025 and effective from 19 September 2025, formally regulate class action litigation in the High Court for the first time.
The First Amendment: Rule 1 – the Definition of a “Class Action”
For the first time, the Uniform Rules formally define the term. A ‘class action’ is defined as an action initiated by a representative on behalf of a group or class of persons, which may include the representative, where the factual or legal issues in contention are substantially similar and thus every class member will be bound by the outcome of the issues that they share in common (Government Notice R6504 of 2025). This is the first time that a class action has been defined and will provide more clarity for class action lawsuits in South Africa in future.
It is notable that the definition refers to “substantial similarity” of the factual or legal issues and does not require the claims or losses to be identical. This is an important distinction for practitioners to note when determining whether a proposed action falls within the scope.
The Second Amendment: Rule 11A of The Uniform Rules of Court
The centrepiece of the amendments is the new Rule 11A, which codifies certification as a mandatory prerequisite before any class action may proceed. No action shall be instituted as a class action unless it has first been certified by a court (Government Notice R6504 of 2025).
Rule 11A upholds and codifies the framework first set out by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Children’s Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Food, which dealt with when a class action may be brought to court and the procedural requirements that must be satisfied before it is instituted (Children’s Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Food). In the judgment, Wallis JA declined to wait for legislative intervention to determine the procedural requirements of a class action, holding that the court will use its power to refer to certain criteria that are just and reasonable (The Children’s Resource Centre Trust case).
In Mukaddam, the Constitutional Court clarified that the certification requirements laid down in the Children’s Resource Centre are not conditions precedent or jurisdictional facts. Rather, they are factors to be weighed in determining where the interests of justice lie. The absence of one factor does not automatically defeat certification, nor does its presence guarantee it (Mukaddam v Pioneer Foods). The new Rule 11A reflects this “interests of justice” framework.
The implementation of Rule11A sets out the requirements clearly and specifies that the application for certification is brought by way of application in accordance with Rule 6 of the Uniform Rules, and must establish:
- That it is in the interest of justice to certify the action;
- an identifiable class defined by an objective criteria;
- a cause of action raising a triable issue;
- issues of fact or law common to all class members;
- relief or damages which flow from the cause of action and are capable of determination;
- Where damages are claimed, an appropriate procedure for allocating damages to class members;
- Whether the class action is the most appropriate means of determining the claims, given the composition of the class; and
- a suitable representative who can represent the class (Government Notice R6504 of 2025).
The application must also be accompanied by a draft particular of claim which sets out the grounds of the action.
Additionally, applications for leave to appeal orders that are made during certification proceedings are provided for in Rule 49, which supports due process and allows opportunity for judicial review.
What the Amendments Mean in Practice
The amendments signify a structural shift in how class action will be conducted in South Africa. Practitioners have historically been reluctant to bring such actions due to procedural uncertainty, and courts had limited guidance on how to manage such cases. The formal certification framework provides practitioners and the courts with a clear roadmap. What’s more, class action work now could become a new and advanced practice area in law firms, and the amendments allow law firms to position themselves as well-established class action litigation specialists. There is also an upside to defendants of class action litigations; they too have the necessary understanding and clarity on how a matter brought can be opposed and on what basis.
From the perspective of the plaintiffs, these amendments should be seen as encouraging and effective. Class members can now confidently sign up for these matters, which not only increases access to justice for all, saves on legal fees, and assists in reducing the current burden on our courts to hear trials, but also makes the path to a potential redress clear and defined.
Anti-Fraud & Corruption Law in Africa 