Bon Com (Pty) Ltd and Another v Services Sector For Education Training and Authority and Others (2021/13157) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1156 (13 October 2023)
The court held that the Plaintiffs' particulars of claim failed to disclose a cause of action in delict, as the agreements relied upon were merely 'agreements to agree' and thus not binding or enforceable. The alleged misrepresentation related to future conduct and required fault in the form of dolus, which was not pleaded. The damages claimed were not causally connected to any actionable misrepresentation. The alternative claim based on 'legitimate expectation' was rejected, as this doctrine does not create a new source of liability outside contract, delict, unjust enrichment, or statute. The attempt to invoke the court's power to develop the common law was unsupported by pleaded facts....
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 1156
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Bon Com (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: BC Training Academy (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Services Sector For Education Training and Authority; Defendant: Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology; Defendant: National Skills Authority
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 13 October 2023
- Case Number
- 2021/13157
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
- Outcome
- Exception upheld; particulars of claim struck out with leave to amend.
- Judges
- G Farber
- Legal Topics
- Agreement to Agree, Negligent Misrepresentation, Legitimate Expectation, Development of Common Law
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bon Com (Pty) Ltd
Plaintiff
BC Training Academy (Pty) Ltd
Plaintiff
Services Sector For Education Training and Authority
Defendant
Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology
Defendant
National Skills Authority
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a cause of action in delict against the First Defendant.
- 2 Whether a claim based on 'legitimate expectation' constitutes a sustainable cause of action in these circumstances.
- 3 Whether the pleaded facts justify the development of the common law under section 173 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Plaintiffs' particulars of claim failed to disclose a cause of action in delict, as the agreements relied upon were merely 'agreements to agree' and thus not binding or enforceable. The alleged misrepresentation related to future conduct and required fault in the form of dolus, which was not pleaded. The damages claimed were not causally connected to any actionable misrepresentation. The alternative claim based on 'legitimate expectation' was rejected, as this doctrine does not create a new source of liability outside contract, delict, unjust enrichment, or statute. The attempt to invoke the court's power to develop the common law was unsupported by pleaded facts....
Court Disposition
Exception upheld; particulars of claim struck out with leave to amend.
Orders
- The exception is upheld and the First and Second Plaintiffs' particulars of claim are struck out.
- The First and Second Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their particulars of claim within 20 days of publication of this Judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment