ABSA Bank (Pty) Ltd v Xatasi (2024/052931) [2025] ZAGPJHC 567 (13 June 2025)

ABSA Bank (Pty) Ltd v Xatasi (2024/052931) [2025] ZAGPJHC 567 (13 June 2025)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the existence or terms of any contract between herself and the defendant, as required by Rule 18(6) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The plaintiff did not allege a breach of any specific contractual term, but rather complained that the defendant omitted to insert a term warning of repossession and eviction. The pleadings did not disclose a contractual link or nexus, nor a recognisable cause of action in law. The court held that the claim is bad in law and cannot be remedied by amendment. Accordingly, the exception was upheld and the Particulars of Claim struck out.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 567
Parties
Defendant: ABSA Bank (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Ntombifuthi Zwane
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2025
Case Number
2024/052931
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; Particulars of Claim struck out; costs awarded against plaintiff; investigation ordered into legal consultants.
Judges
E Dreyer
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Breach of Contract, Pleading Requirements, Reckless Lending
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Breach of Contract Pleading Requirements Reckless Lending

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABSA Bank (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Ntombifuthi Zwane

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's Particulars of Claim disclose a cause of action in contract against the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has pleaded the necessary averments to sustain a claim for damages for breach of contract.
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings can be remedied by amendment to disclose a valid cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the existence or terms of any contract between herself and the defendant, as required by Rule 18(6) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The plaintiff did not allege a breach of any specific contractual term, but rather complained that the defendant omitted to insert a term warning of repossession and eviction. The pleadings did not disclose a contractual link or nexus, nor a recognisable cause of action in law. The court held that the claim is bad in law and cannot be remedied by amendment. Accordingly, the exception was upheld and the Particulars of Claim struck out.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; Particulars of Claim struck out; costs awarded against plaintiff; investigation ordered into legal consultants.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld.
  • The plaintiff's Particulars of Claim is struck out.