Disipi v Member of the Executive Council for Health : Northern Cape Province (183/2023 ; 182/2023) [2024] ZANCHC 117 (13 December 2024)

Disipi v Member of the Executive Council for Health : Northern Cape Province (183/2023 ; 182/2023) [2024] ZANCHC 117 (13 December 2024)

The court found that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim in both cases failed to comply with Rule 18(4) and (10) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The pleadings lacked sufficient particularity regarding the facts giving rise to the claim and the quantification of damages, rendering it impossible for the defendant to plead or assess the quantum. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the defendant had taken a further step in the proceedings by filing a Rule 35(14) notice, holding that such notices are preparatory and do not advance the proceedings toward completion. The Rule 30(2)(b) notice was found to be filed within the prescribed time limits. The court emphasized the need for...

Citation
[2024] ZANCHC 117
Parties
Respondent: Keitumetse Judia Disipi; Respondent: Kgothatso Dewi Disipi; Applicant: Member of the Executive Council for Health: Northern Cape Province
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2024
Case Number
183/2023 ; 182/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Rule 30(1) Application to Set Aside Particulars of Claim as Irregular Step
Outcome
The particulars of claim in both cases are set aside for non-compliance with Rule 18(4) and (10). Plaintiffs are ordered to amend their particulars within twenty days. Costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
MC Mamosebo
Legal Topics
Uniform Rules of Court, Pleading Particularity, Damages Quantification, Irregular Step, Rule 18 Compliance
Civil Procedure Uniform Rules of Court Pleading Particularity Damages Quantification Irregular Step Rule 18 Compliance

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keitumetse Judia Disipi

Respondent

Kgothatso Dewi Disipi

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Health: Northern Cape Province

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Rule 30(1) Application to Set Aside Particulars of Claim as Irregular Step

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' particulars of claim comply with Rule 18(4) and (10) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's Rule 30(2)(b) notice was filed within the prescribed time limits.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant took a further step in the proceedings by filing a Rule 35(14) notice, precluding the Rule 30 application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim in both cases failed to comply with Rule 18(4) and (10) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The pleadings lacked sufficient particularity regarding the facts giving rise to the claim and the quantification of damages, rendering it impossible for the defendant to plead or assess the quantum. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the defendant had taken a further step in the proceedings by filing a Rule 35(14) notice, holding that such notices are preparatory and do not advance the proceedings toward completion. The Rule 30(2)(b) notice was found to be filed within the prescribed time limits. The court emphasized the need for...

Court Disposition

The particulars of claim in both cases are set aside for non-compliance with Rule 18(4) and (10). Plaintiffs are ordered to amend their particulars within twenty days. Costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The Particulars of Claim under Case No 182/2023 are set aside.
  • The respondent/plaintiff, Kgothatso Dewi Disipi, shall amend the Particulars of Claim dated 31 January 2023 to comply with Rule 18(4) and (10) within twenty days of the date of this order.