Aveng (Africa) Ltd v Varicor Six (Pty) Ltd t/a Sigma Consulting (1613/09) [2010] ZAECPEHC 12 (9 April 2010)

Aveng (Africa) Ltd v Varicor Six (Pty) Ltd t/a Sigma Consulting (1613/09) [2010] ZAECPEHC 12 (9 April 2010)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim did not provide sufficient detail regarding the remedial steps taken and the nature of the work performed to remedy the alleged defects. The breakdown of damages was not linked with adequate specificity to the alleged breaches, leaving the defendant unable to assess the quantum or the relevance of each item claimed. The court held that the summons was vague and embarrassing, as it failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 18(4) and did not enable the defendant to plead effectively. The exception was therefore upheld, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend its particulars of claim.

Citation
[2010] ZAECPEHC 12
Parties
Plaintiff: Aveng (Africa) Limited; Defendant: Varicor Six (Pty) Limited t/a Sigma Consulting
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 April 2010
Case Number
1613/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; particulars of claim found vague and embarrassing.
Judges
C T Sangoni
Legal Topics
Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Breach of Contract, Quantum of Damages, Rule 18 Particularity, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Breach of Contract Quantum of Damages Rule 18 Particularity 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aveng (Africa) Limited

Plaintiff

Varicor Six (Pty) Limited t/a Sigma Consulting

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing to the extent that the defendant cannot plead thereto.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim for damages contains sufficient particularity to enable the defendant to assess the quantum and the nexus to the alleged breach.
  3. 3 Whether the notice delivered by the defendant in terms of Rule 23(1) was proper and afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to remove the causes of complaint.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim did not provide sufficient detail regarding the remedial steps taken and the nature of the work performed to remedy the alleged defects. The breakdown of damages was not linked with adequate specificity to the alleged breaches, leaving the defendant unable to assess the quantum or the relevance of each item claimed. The court held that the summons was vague and embarrassing, as it failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 18(4) and did not enable the defendant to plead effectively. The exception was therefore upheld, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend its particulars of claim.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; particulars of claim found vague and embarrassing.

Orders

  • The exception is allowed.
  • The plaintiff is given leave to amend its particulars of claim within 14 days from the date of this order.