Bowman Gilfillan Inc v Minister of Transport (15806/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 474 (24 May 2018)

Bowman Gilfillan Inc v Minister of Transport (15806/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 474 (24 May 2018)

The court found that its previous judgment and orders were interlocutory and did not have final effect, as the applicant was afforded an opportunity to amend its particulars of claim. The applicant failed to utilize this procedural step and thus the judgment was not definitive of the parties' rights. Even if the judgment were appealable, the court was not persuaded that the applicant's particulars of claim disclosed a public law remedy or a cause of action for review under the Constitution. The relief sought was based on common law contract principles and undue enrichment, not on legality review. The particulars of claim were also found to be vague and embarrassing. The court concluded...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 474
Parties
Applicant: Bowman Gilfillan Inc; Respondent: Minister of Transport; Respondent: Mangisi George Mahlalela; Respondent: Ngidi & Associates Inc; Respondent: Morar Inc
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2018
Case Number
15806/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Exception
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mokoena
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Declaratory Relief, Cause of Action, Vagueness and Embarrassment, Undue Enrichment
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Declaratory Relief Cause of Action Vagueness and Embarrassment Undue Enrichment

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bowman Gilfillan Inc

Applicant

Minister of Transport

Respondent

Mangisi George Mahlalela

Respondent

Ngidi & Associates Inc

Respondent

Morar Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Exception

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action sufficient to withstand exception.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing.
  3. 3 Whether the judgment and orders previously made are final and appealable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that its previous judgment and orders were interlocutory and did not have final effect, as the applicant was afforded an opportunity to amend its particulars of claim. The applicant failed to utilize this procedural step and thus the judgment was not definitive of the parties' rights. Even if the judgment were appealable, the court was not persuaded that the applicant's particulars of claim disclosed a public law remedy or a cause of action for review under the Constitution. The relief sought was based on common law contract principles and undue enrichment, not on legality review. The particulars of claim were also found to be vague and embarrassing. The court concluded...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant has failed to satisfy any of the grounds or requirements set out in section 17 read with section 18(2) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
  • There are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal.