Blue Moonlight Properties 82 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mashianoke (HCAA10/2018) [2019] ZALMPPHC 20 (10 May 2019)

Blue Moonlight Properties 82 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mashianoke (HCAA10/2018) [2019] ZALMPPHC 20 (10 May 2019)

The court found that the respondent's particulars of claim against the first appellant were sufficient, not vague or embarrassing, and disclosed a cause of action for repayment of the purchase price following breach and cancellation of the contract. The first appellant was able to plead to the claim, and no bona fide defence was disclosed in the summary judgment proceedings. Accordingly, summary judgment against the first appellant was confirmed. In contrast, the particulars of claim against the second appellant were excipiable, as they failed to allege the existence and scope of a contract of mandate or fiduciary duty sufficient to sustain a claim for damages. The respondent was granted...

Citation
[2019] ZALMPPHC 20
Parties
Appellant: Blue Moonlight Properties 82 (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Conrad Hendrik Krüger; Respondent: Thomo William Chachane Mashianoke
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2019
Case Number
HCAA 10/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment; Special Leave Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
First appellant's appeal dismissed with costs; summary judgment confirmed. Second appellant's appeal upheld; exception sustained and leave to amend particulars of claim granted.
Judges
E M Makgoba, M V Semenya, L G P Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Exception to Particulars of Claim, Contract of Sale, Fiduciary Duty, Mandate, Pleading Requirements
Civil Procedure Land and Property Summary Judgment Exception to Particulars of Claim Contract of Sale Fiduciary Duty Mandate Pleading Requirements

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

Parties

Blue Moonlight Properties 82 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Conrad Hendrik Krüger

Appellant

Thomo William Chachane Mashianoke

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment; Special Leave Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's particulars of claim are excipiable for lack of averments necessary to sustain a cause of action or for being vague and embarrassing.
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was properly granted against both appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the second appellant owed a fiduciary duty to the respondent sufficient to sustain a claim for damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's particulars of claim against the first appellant were sufficient, not vague or embarrassing, and disclosed a cause of action for repayment of the purchase price following breach and cancellation of the contract. The first appellant was able to plead to the claim, and no bona fide defence was disclosed in the summary judgment proceedings. Accordingly, summary judgment against the first appellant was confirmed. In contrast, the particulars of claim against the second appellant were excipiable, as they failed to allege the existence and scope of a contract of mandate or fiduciary duty sufficient to sustain a claim for damages. The respondent was granted...

Court Disposition

First appellant's appeal dismissed with costs; summary judgment confirmed. Second appellant's appeal upheld; exception sustained and leave to amend particulars of claim granted.

Orders

  • The first appellant's appeal is dismissed with costs and the judgment and order of the court a quo for payment of R 663 458.38 plus interest and costs is confirmed.
  • The second appellant's appeal is upheld with no order as to costs.