Dormell Properties 282 CC v Bamberger (20191/14) [2015] ZASCA 89 (29 May 2015)

Dormell Properties 282 CC v Bamberger (20191/14) [2015] ZASCA 89 (29 May 2015)

The court held that Dormell's particulars of claim were premised on an invalid deed of suretyship annexed to a memorandum of lease that was not signed by Dormell, rendering the suretyship unenforceable. Dormell failed to amend its pleadings to rely on the valid suretyship clause in the offer to lease, which prejudiced Bamberger by denying him the opportunity to raise the benefit of excussion as a defence. The court found that pleadings must define the issues and parties are bound by them; a court's discretion to allow reliance on unpleaded issues is limited where prejudice would result. Since Bamberger was not afforded the opportunity to raise excussion and Dormell did not properly plead...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 89
Parties
Appellant: Dormell Properties 282 CC; Respondent: Alwyn Gideon Bamberger
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2015
Case Number
20191/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Lewis, Shongwe, Majiedt, Schoeman, Mayat
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Suretyship, Benefit of Excussion, Contractual Liability
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Pleading Requirements Suretyship Benefit of Excussion Contractual Liability

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dormell Properties 282 CC

Appellant

Alwyn Gideon Bamberger

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim properly pleaded a valid suretyship agreement against the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to plead the suretyship clause in the offer to lease prejudiced the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was denied the opportunity to raise the benefit of excussion as a defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Dormell's particulars of claim were premised on an invalid deed of suretyship annexed to a memorandum of lease that was not signed by Dormell, rendering the suretyship unenforceable. Dormell failed to amend its pleadings to rely on the valid suretyship clause in the offer to lease, which prejudiced Bamberger by denying him the opportunity to raise the benefit of excussion as a defence. The court found that pleadings must define the issues and parties are bound by them; a court's discretion to allow reliance on unpleaded issues is limited where prejudice would result. Since Bamberger was not afforded the opportunity to raise excussion and Dormell did not properly plead...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.