Chemical Specialities (Pty) Ltd v Humansdorp Paint Centre CC (227/09) [2010] ZAECPEHC 11 (30 March 2010)

Chemical Specialities (Pty) Ltd v Humansdorp Paint Centre CC (227/09) [2010] ZAECPEHC 11 (30 March 2010)

The court found that the proposed amendment to introduce a claim based on a tacit agreement was defective because it failed to plead the necessary facts and circumstances to support the existence of such an agreement, rendering the pleading excipiable. The amendment to paragraph 11, which sought to alter the quantum claimed, could not stand alone as it would create inconsistency with the prayers for relief, resulting in vagueness and embarrassment. The court held that neither amendment could be granted and dismissed the application for amendment with costs.

Citation
[2010] ZAECPEHC 11
Parties
Applicant: Chemical Specialities (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Humansdorp Paint Centre CC
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2010
Case Number
227/09
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application for amendment dismissed with costs.
Judges
J W Eksteen
Legal Topics
Pleading Amendment, Vague and Embarrassing, Tacit Agreement, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 18
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Pleading Amendment Vague and Embarrassing Tacit Agreement Uniform Rules of Court Rule 18

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chemical Specialities (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Humansdorp Paint Centre CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's proposed amendment to its Particulars of Claim should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the amended pleadings would be excipiable for vagueness or embarrassment.
  3. 3 Whether sufficient facts and circumstances were pleaded to support the alleged tacit agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the proposed amendment to introduce a claim based on a tacit agreement was defective because it failed to plead the necessary facts and circumstances to support the existence of such an agreement, rendering the pleading excipiable. The amendment to paragraph 11, which sought to alter the quantum claimed, could not stand alone as it would create inconsistency with the prayers for relief, resulting in vagueness and embarrassment. The court held that neither amendment could be granted and dismissed the application for amendment with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for amendment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for amendment of the Particulars of Claim is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.