Aecom (Pty) Ltd v Hattingh N.O and Others (1455/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 115 (6 July 2017)

Aecom (Pty) Ltd v Hattingh N.O and Others (1455/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 115 (6 July 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff had complied with Rule 18(10) by specifying the quantum of damages as the costs incurred for professional services less the amount paid by the defendants. The excipients are able to reasonably assess the quantum and plead to the allegations. Even if there was non-compliance, no serious prejudice was demonstrated, as further particulars could be requested under Rule 21. The exception was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 115
Parties
Plaintiff: AECOM (PTY) LTD; Defendant: FANTI BEKKER HATTINGH N.O.; Defendant: STEPHEN FOUCHEE N.O.; Defendant: JOHANNES JACOBUS WOLHUTER N.O.; Defendant: CHARL PIERRE CELLIERS; Defendant: CANTON TRADING 17 (PTY) LTD; Defendant: FANTI BEKKER HATTINGH; Defendant: JOHANNES JACOBUS WOLHUTER
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 July 2017
Case Number
1455/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Third Party Notice Under Rule 13
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
J.J.F Hefer
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Quantum of Damages, Rule 18 Compliance
Civil Procedure Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Quantum of Damages Rule 18 Compliance

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AECOM (PTY) LTD

Plaintiff

FANTI BEKKER HATTINGH N.O.

Defendant

STEPHEN FOUCHEE N.O.

Defendant

JOHANNES JACOBUS WOLHUTER N.O.

Defendant

CHARL PIERRE CELLIERS

Defendant

CANTON TRADING 17 (PTY) LTD

Defendant

FANTI BEKKER HATTINGH

Defendant

JOHANNES JACOBUS WOLHUTER

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Third Party Notice Under Rule 13

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's third party notice is vague and embarrassing regarding the quantum of damages claimed.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has complied with Rule 18(10) of the Uniform Rules of Court in setting out damages.
  3. 3 Whether the excipients are prejudiced by the alleged vagueness in the pleading.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had complied with Rule 18(10) by specifying the quantum of damages as the costs incurred for professional services less the amount paid by the defendants. The excipients are able to reasonably assess the quantum and plead to the allegations. Even if there was non-compliance, no serious prejudice was demonstrated, as further particulars could be requested under Rule 21. The exception was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs.