Assore Ltd and Others v Paris (44431/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 36 (22 January 2024)

Assore Ltd and Others v Paris (44431/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 36 (22 January 2024)

The court found that the grounds for exception raised by the defendants were substantially the same as those previously considered and dismissed by F Bezuidenhout AJ, who had already ruled that the amended particulars of claim were not excipiable. The court held that it was not appropriate for the defendants to seek a second bite at the cherry by re-arguing the same objections at this stage. The exception was therefore refused. Regarding costs, the court determined that the exception was unnecessary and awarded costs against the defendants on an attorney and client scale to reflect the court's disapproval of their conduct.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 36
Parties
Defendant: Assore Ltd; Defendant: African Mining and Trust Company; Defendant: Charles Edward Walters; Defendant: Bongani Phakati; Plaintiff: Megan Dominique Paris
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 2024
Case Number
44431/2019
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception refused; costs awarded against defendants on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Holland-Muter
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing, Failure to Disclose Cause of Action, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Failure to Disclose Cause of Action Costs Award

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 6 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Assore Ltd

Defendant

African Mining and Trust Company

Defendant

Charles Edward Walters

Defendant

Bongani Phakati

Defendant

Megan Dominique Paris

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended particulars of claim remain excipiable as vague and embarrassing or failing to disclose a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to a second exception on grounds previously ruled upon.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on an attorney and client scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds for exception raised by the defendants were substantially the same as those previously considered and dismissed by F Bezuidenhout AJ, who had already ruled that the amended particulars of claim were not excipiable. The court held that it was not appropriate for the defendants to seek a second bite at the cherry by re-arguing the same objections at this stage. The exception was therefore refused. Regarding costs, the court determined that the exception was unnecessary and awarded costs against the defendants on an attorney and client scale to reflect the court's disapproval of their conduct.

Court Disposition

Exception refused; costs awarded against defendants on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The exception is refused.
  • The defendants (excipients) are ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff (respondent) on an attorney and client scale.