Confronting selected difficulties associated with the enforcement of res judicata in South Africa with reference to Samancor v Rham Equipment (532/13)  ZASCA 66 – Pg. 215.
Estoppel prohibits a person (asserter) from asserting something contrary to what is implied by the previous action, conduct or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination regarding such action, conduct or statement. There are various types and/or principles of estoppel that govern the application and enforcement of estoppel in many jurisdictions. Nevertheless, a detailed discussion of such types and/or principles is beyond the scope of this article which primarily discusses certain difficulties and/or flaws that are found in the enforcement of res judicata in South Africa as exposed in Samancor v Rham Equipment (532/13)  ZASCA 66. In view of this, it should be noted that the article explores the judgment in this case in order to expose certain difficulties and inconsistencies that still confront the courts in relation to the application and enforcement of res judicata and issue estoppel in South Africa.