EH Hassim Hardware (Pty) Ltd and Another v Segabokeng Building Constriction CC and Others (69167/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 629 (27 September 2021)

EH Hassim Hardware (Pty) Ltd and Another v Segabokeng Building Constriction CC and Others (69167/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 629 (27 September 2021)

The Court found that the Defendants had complied with the order by delivering their responses to the request for further particulars and filing their discovery affidavit. The particulars requested by the Plaintiffs were not strictly necessary for trial preparation, as required by Rule 21(2). The Defendants' plea and responses were sufficiently clear to inform the Plaintiffs of the case they had to meet. The Plaintiffs bear the onus of proving their case, and the Defendants' bare denials are permissible. The application to strike out the Defendants' defence was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 629
Parties
Plaintiff: EH Hassim Hardware (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Taurus Garden Trading 500 CC; Defendant: Segabokeng Building Constriction CC; Defendant: Kgalemo Construction (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Schalk Jacobus Boltman; Defendant: The Trustees for the Time Being of the Independent Development Trust
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 2021
Case Number
69167/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Defence for Failure to Deliver Further Particulars
Outcome
Application to strike out the First and Second Defendants' plea is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Khumalo MP
Legal Topics
Request for Further Particulars, Settlement Agreement, Striking Out of Defence, Pleadings, Discovery Affidavit
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Request for Further Particulars Settlement Agreement Striking Out of Defence Pleadings Discovery Affidavit

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EH Hassim Hardware (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Taurus Garden Trading 500 CC

Plaintiff

Segabokeng Building Constriction CC

Defendant

Kgalemo Construction (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Schalk Jacobus Boltman

Defendant

The Trustees for the Time Being of the Independent Development Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Defence for Failure to Deliver Further Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First and Second Defendants' defence should be struck out for failure to deliver further particulars as ordered by the Court.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars requested by the Plaintiffs are strictly necessary for trial preparation under Rule 21.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants' responses to the request for further particulars were sufficient.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Defendants had complied with the order by delivering their responses to the request for further particulars and filing their discovery affidavit. The particulars requested by the Plaintiffs were not strictly necessary for trial preparation, as required by Rule 21(2). The Defendants' plea and responses were sufficiently clear to inform the Plaintiffs of the case they had to meet. The Plaintiffs bear the onus of proving their case, and the Defendants' bare denials are permissible. The application to strike out the Defendants' defence was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out the First and Second Defendants' plea is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The First and Second Plaintiffs' application to strike out the First and Second Defendants' plea is dismissed with costs.