Bencherki v Ericsson Sub Saharan Africa (Pty) Ltd (12002/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 115 (31 March 2017)

Bencherki v Ericsson Sub Saharan Africa (Pty) Ltd (12002/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 115 (31 March 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing in multiple respects, failing to comply with Rule 18(4) and (6) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The plaintiff did not sufficiently identify the parties, representatives, terms, and nature of the alleged agreements, nor did he annex the relevant documents or specify whether agreements were oral or written. Several claims were based on agreements to agree, which are unenforceable under South African law. The lack of clarity and particularity prejudiced the defendant's ability to plead and understand the case it had to meet. The court held that all exceptions were upheld, the particulars of claim were struck...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 115
Parties
Plaintiff: Mehdi Bencherki; Defendant: Ericsson Sub Saharan Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Case Number
12002/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
All exceptions upheld; particulars of claim struck out; plaintiff granted leave to amend within 20 days; plaintiff to pay costs.
Judges
Mashile
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Vagueness and Embarrassment, Agreement to Agree, Cause of Action, Rule 18 Uniform Rules, Contractual Certainty
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Pleading Requirements Vagueness and Embarrassment Agreement to Agree Cause of Action Rule 18 Uniform Rules Contractual Certainty

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

Parties

Mehdi Bencherki

Plaintiff

Ericsson Sub Saharan Africa (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim comply with Rule 18 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing, prejudicing the defendant's ability to plead.
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a valid cause of action under South African law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing in multiple respects, failing to comply with Rule 18(4) and (6) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The plaintiff did not sufficiently identify the parties, representatives, terms, and nature of the alleged agreements, nor did he annex the relevant documents or specify whether agreements were oral or written. Several claims were based on agreements to agree, which are unenforceable under South African law. The lack of clarity and particularity prejudiced the defendant's ability to plead and understand the case it had to meet. The court held that all exceptions were upheld, the particulars of claim were struck...

Court Disposition

All exceptions upheld; particulars of claim struck out; plaintiff granted leave to amend within 20 days; plaintiff to pay costs.

Orders

  • All the exceptions are upheld.
  • The particulars of claim are struck out in their entirety.