Du Toit NO and Others v Steinhoff International Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others; Jacobus de Vos du Toit NO and Others v Jooste (16244/2018; 47916/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 129; [2020] 1 All SA 142 (WCC) (30 September 2019)

Du Toit NO and Others v Steinhoff International Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others; Jacobus de Vos du Toit NO and Others v Jooste (16244/2018; 47916/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 129; [2020] 1 All SA 142 (WCC) (30 September 2019)

The court found that the exceptions raised by Mr Jooste do not establish that the particulars of claim are vague, embarrassing, or lacking in necessary averments. The pleadings set out the material facts required to sustain the causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of statutory duties under the Companies Act, and breach of fiduciary duties. The computation of damages is sufficiently explained, and any lack of detail does not prejudice the defendant's ability to plead. The use of terms such as 'inter alia' and 'operating minds' does not render the pleadings excipiable. References to annexed documents are adequately specified for the purposes of pleading. The court held...

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 129
Parties
Plaintiff: Jacob de Vos du Toit N.O.; Plaintiff: Theo Werner Biesenbach N.O.; Plaintiff: Magda de Wet N.O.; Plaintiff: Le Toit Trust (IT2108/95); 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; 47916/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory / Exception 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, Pleading Requirements, Damages Computation
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Fraudulent Misrepresentation Companies Act 71 of 2008 Fiduciary Duties Pleading Requirements Damages Computation

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

Le Toit Trust (IT2108/95)

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 Interlocutory / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim in both actions are vague and embarrassing or lack necessary averments to sustain the causes of action.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient material facts to support claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of statutory duties under the Companies Act, and breach of fiduciary duties.
  3. 3 Whether the computation and characterisation of damages is adequately pleaded to enable the defendant to respond.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the exceptions raised by Mr Jooste do not establish that the particulars of claim are vague, embarrassing, or lacking in necessary averments. The pleadings set out the material facts required to sustain the causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of statutory duties under the Companies Act, and breach of fiduciary duties. The computation of damages is sufficiently explained, and any lack of detail does not prejudice the defendant's ability to plead. The use of terms such as 'inter alia' and 'operating minds' does not render the pleadings excipiable. References to annexed documents are adequately specified for the purposes of pleading. The court held...

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.