Egoli Gas (Pty) Limited v Epic Foods (Pty) Limited (31944/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 252 (18 September 2015)

Egoli Gas (Pty) Limited v Epic Foods (Pty) Limited (31944/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 252 (18 September 2015)

The court held that none of the seventeen exceptions raised by the defendant disclosed grounds for upholding the exception. The particulars of claim, when read as a whole, were sufficiently particularised to disclose a cause of action based on a written or tacit supply agreement for the provision of gas. Alleged vagueness or lack of detail related to matters of evidence or could be addressed in the plea. Discrepancies in quantification were typographical and did not affect the substance of the claim. Objections regarding locus standi and the authority of representatives were not grounds for exception but should be pleaded as defences. The court found that the defendant failed to...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 252
Parties
Plaintiff: Egoli Gas (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Epic Foods (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2015
Case Number
31944/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exceptions dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kathree-Setiloane
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Contractual Claim, Locus Standi, Tacit Terms, Quantification of Debt
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Contractual Claim Locus Standi Tacit Terms Quantification of Debt

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Egoli Gas (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff

Epic Foods (Pty) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing or lack averments necessary to sustain a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to sue based on the pleaded agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim adequately plead the existence and terms of a written or tacit supply agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that none of the seventeen exceptions raised by the defendant disclosed grounds for upholding the exception. The particulars of claim, when read as a whole, were sufficiently particularised to disclose a cause of action based on a written or tacit supply agreement for the provision of gas. Alleged vagueness or lack of detail related to matters of evidence or could be addressed in the plea. Discrepancies in quantification were typographical and did not affect the substance of the claim. Objections regarding locus standi and the authority of representatives were not grounds for exception but should be pleaded as defences. The court found that the defendant failed to...

Court Disposition

Exceptions dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exceptions are dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.