De Vos Du Toit NO and Others v Steinhoff International Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others; De Vos Du Toit NO and Others v Jooste (16244/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 134 (30 September 2019)

De Vos Du Toit NO and Others v Steinhoff International Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others; De Vos Du Toit NO and Others v Jooste (16244/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 134 (30 September 2019)

The court found that the particulars of claim in both actions, when read as a whole, set out the material facts and causes of action with sufficient particularity to enable Mr Jooste to plead thereto. The computation of damages, including the concept of 'true market-value', was adequately explained, and the formula for quantification was provided. The representations, their alleged falsity, and the breach of fiduciary duties were pleaded with enough detail to identify the case Mr Jooste must meet. The court held that the level of detail demanded by Mr Jooste pertained to evidence, not material facts, and could be addressed through discovery or requests for further particulars for trial....

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 134
Parties
Plaintiff: Jacob De Vos Du Toit N.O.; Plaintiff: Theo Werner Biesenbach N.O.; Plaintiff: Magda De Wet N.O.; Defendant: Steinhoff International Holdings (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Markus Johannes Jooste; Defendant: Andries Benjamin La Grange; Defendant: Steinhoff International Holdings N.V.; Defendant: Steinhoff Investment Holdings Limited
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2019
Case Number
16244/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Interlocutory Application: Exceptions to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exceptions dismissed; costs awarded against Mr Jooste.
Judges
Francis, AJ
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Companies Act 71 of 2008, Fiduciary Duties, Damages Quantification, Pleading Requirements, Exception Procedure
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Delict Fraudulent Misrepresentation Companies Act 71 of 2008 Fiduciary Duties Damages Quantification Pleading Requirements +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob De Vos Du Toit N.O.

Plaintiff

Theo Werner Biesenbach N.O.

Plaintiff

Magda De Wet N.O.

Plaintiff

Steinhoff International Holdings (Pty) Limited

Defendant

Markus Johannes Jooste

Defendant

Andries Benjamin La Grange

Defendant

Steinhoff International Holdings N.V.

Defendant

Steinhoff Investment Holdings Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Interlocutory Application: Exceptions to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim in both actions are vague and embarrassing and/or lack necessary averments to sustain the causes of action.
  2. 2 Whether the computation and characterisation of damages by the plaintiffs is sufficiently pleaded.
  3. 3 Whether the representations and their alleged falsity are pleaded with adequate particularity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the particulars of claim in both actions, when read as a whole, set out the material facts and causes of action with sufficient particularity to enable Mr Jooste to plead thereto. The computation of damages, including the concept of 'true market-value', was adequately explained, and the formula for quantification was provided. The representations, their alleged falsity, and the breach of fiduciary duties were pleaded with enough detail to identify the case Mr Jooste must meet. The court held that the level of detail demanded by Mr Jooste pertained to evidence, not material facts, and could be addressed through discovery or requests for further particulars for trial....

Court Disposition

Exceptions dismissed; costs awarded against Mr Jooste.

Orders

  • The exceptions lodged by Mr Jooste under Case Nos. 16244/2018 and 47916/19 are dismissed.
  • Mr Jooste is ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.