B v B and Others (10417/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1292 (24 May 2017)

B v B and Others (10417/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1292 (24 May 2017)

The court found that the defendant's counterclaim, although challenged on multiple grounds, was not excipiable for vagueness, embarrassment, or failure to disclose a cause of action. The relief sought in respect of the property and trust arrangements was sufficiently particularized, and the interests of third parties such as the banks were adequately protected by the terms of the orders sought. The oral agreements and trust arrangements, while questioned for validity, were not the central issue; rather, the cause of action was based on alleged misrepresentations and resultant damages. The court held that further particulars could be requested for trial, and that the absence of certain...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1292
Parties
Plaintiff: B J B; Defendant: A E C B; Appellant: D M B N.O; Appellant: M C B N.O; Defendant: JEANCON CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2017
Case Number
10417/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Counterclaim in Divorce Proceedings
Outcome
Plaintiff's exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
Makhubele
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Oral Agreement, Trust Law, Misrepresentation, Non Joinder, Damages Claim
Civil Procedure Family and Children Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Oral Agreement Trust Law Misrepresentation Non Joinder +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B J B

Plaintiff

A E C B

Defendant

D M B N.O

Appellant

M C B N.O

Appellant

JEANCON CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Counterclaim in Divorce Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's counterclaim is excipiable for being vague, embarrassing, or disclosing no cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the oral agreements and trust arrangements pleaded are legally valid and sufficiently particularized.
  3. 3 Whether non-joinder of banks or other parties prejudices the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's counterclaim, although challenged on multiple grounds, was not excipiable for vagueness, embarrassment, or failure to disclose a cause of action. The relief sought in respect of the property and trust arrangements was sufficiently particularized, and the interests of third parties such as the banks were adequately protected by the terms of the orders sought. The oral agreements and trust arrangements, while questioned for validity, were not the central issue; rather, the cause of action was based on alleged misrepresentations and resultant damages. The court held that further particulars could be requested for trial, and that the absence of certain...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's exception is dismissed with costs.