Business Zone 679 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Nedbank Limited (51412/2010) [2011] ZAGPPHC 13 (11 February 2011)

Business Zone 679 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Nedbank Limited (51412/2010) [2011] ZAGPPHC 13 (11 February 2011)

The court found that the agreement, when read as a whole, did not require the plaintiff to plead compliance with the suspensive condition relating to the PFMA, as both parties were private entities and the inclusion of PFMA-related clauses was an oversight. Clause 24 provided a warranty of compliance by the user upon signature, which was sufficient to render the agreement valid and enforceable. The particulars of claim were therefore not excipiable, and the exception was dismissed.

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 13
Parties
Defendant: Business Zone 679 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Laurence Stephen Bird; Plaintiff: Nedbank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 February 2011
Case Number
51412/2010
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Suspensive Condition, Cession of Rights, Suretyship, Public Finance Management Act
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception to Particulars of Claim Suspensive Condition Cession of Rights Suretyship Public Finance Management Act

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Business Zone 679 (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Laurence Stephen Bird

Defendant

Nedbank Limited

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a valid cause of action in light of the alleged non-fulfilment of a suspensive condition in the agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was required to plead compliance with the suspensive condition relating to the Public Finance Management Act.
  3. 3 Whether the agreement between the parties is valid and enforceable despite the inclusion of PFMA-related clauses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the agreement, when read as a whole, did not require the plaintiff to plead compliance with the suspensive condition relating to the PFMA, as both parties were private entities and the inclusion of PFMA-related clauses was an oversight. Clause 24 provided a warranty of compliance by the user upon signature, which was sufficient to render the agreement valid and enforceable. The particulars of claim were therefore not excipiable, and the exception was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs.