Amalgamated Metal Recycling v Limpopo Scrap Metal CC (49343/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 71 (5 February 2016)

Amalgamated Metal Recycling v Limpopo Scrap Metal CC (49343/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 71 (5 February 2016)

The court found that the plaintiff did not annex a true copy of the written contract to its particulars of claim as required by Rule 18(6), but the documents annexed were created after the contract and do not constitute the contract itself. The plaintiff did not provide reasons for its inability to annex the contract, and it appears the contract itself is not voluminous. However, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the absence of the contract caused embarrassment amounting to prejudice. The defendant made only a bold submission without showing actual prejudice. The court held that the defendant may use other procedural mechanisms, such as Rule 35, to compel production of the...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 71
Parties
Plaintiff: Amalgamated Metal Recycling; Defendant: Limpopo Scrap Metal CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 February 2016
Case Number
49343/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
M V Semenya
Legal Topics
Rule 18 6 Uniform Rules, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Rule 18 6 Uniform Rules Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Exception Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amalgamated Metal Recycling

Plaintiff

Limpopo Scrap Metal CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was obliged to annex a true copy of the written contract to its particulars of claim in terms of Rule 18(6).
  2. 2 Whether the failure to annex the written contract renders the particulars of claim vague and embarrassing.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of the alleged vagueness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff did not annex a true copy of the written contract to its particulars of claim as required by Rule 18(6), but the documents annexed were created after the contract and do not constitute the contract itself. The plaintiff did not provide reasons for its inability to annex the contract, and it appears the contract itself is not voluminous. However, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the absence of the contract caused embarrassment amounting to prejudice. The defendant made only a bold submission without showing actual prejudice. The court held that the defendant may use other procedural mechanisms, such as Rule 35, to compel production of the...

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs.