Curoscore (Pty) Ltd v Nxumalo (1619/2020) [2021] ZAECBHC 6 (23 March 2021)

Curoscore (Pty) Ltd v Nxumalo (1619/2020) [2021] ZAECBHC 6 (23 March 2021)

The court found that the defendant's exception did not comply with Rule 23, as it failed to identify any vagueness, embarrassment, or lack of necessary averments in the plaintiff's particulars of claim. The grounds raised were unintelligible and did not constitute a legal exception. The defendant's references to other proceedings and alleged procedural irregularities were unsubstantiated and did not establish any valid defence such as lack of jurisdiction or locus standi. The application to strike out was also not properly brought under Rule 6(15), as no scandalous, vexatious, or irrelevant matter was identified. Accordingly, the defendant failed to persuade the court that the particulars...

Citation
[2021] ZAECBHC 6
Parties
Applicant: Curoscore (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Nqobile Moffat Nxumalo
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2021
Case Number
1619/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Exception and Application to Strike Out Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
M Makaula
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Jurisdiction of High Court, Lis Pendens, Striking Out Application
Civil Procedure Exception Procedure Jurisdiction of High Court Lis Pendens Striking Out Application

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Curoscore (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Nqobile Moffat Nxumalo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Exception and Application to Strike Out Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's exception to the plaintiff's particulars of claim discloses valid grounds under Rule 23.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter given the lease agreement and previous proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's application to strike out is properly brought under Rule 6(15).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's exception did not comply with Rule 23, as it failed to identify any vagueness, embarrassment, or lack of necessary averments in the plaintiff's particulars of claim. The grounds raised were unintelligible and did not constitute a legal exception. The defendant's references to other proceedings and alleged procedural irregularities were unsubstantiated and did not establish any valid defence such as lack of jurisdiction or locus standi. The application to strike out was also not properly brought under Rule 6(15), as no scandalous, vexatious, or irrelevant matter was identified. Accordingly, the defendant failed to persuade the court that the particulars...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.