Eskom Holdings v Lesole Agencies CC; In re: Lesole Agencies v Eskom Holdings (2555/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 171 (28 September 2017)

Eskom Holdings v Lesole Agencies CC; In re: Lesole Agencies v Eskom Holdings (2555/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 171 (28 September 2017)

The court found that the conditions of the contract document (annexure 'A') clearly prescribe the processes to be followed for the conclusion of a contract. Where the mode of acceptance is stipulated, it must be followed for a contract to be valid. The plaintiff's particulars of claim were found to be vague and embarrassing, as they relied on an unsigned contract and contradictory versions of the agreement. The first exception was upheld, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to amend its summons and particulars of claim. The court declined to decide the second exception concerning the interpretation of the limitation of liability clause, holding that such questions should be determined...

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 171
Parties
Defendant: Eskom Holdings; Plaintiff: Lesole Agencies CC
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2017
Case Number
2555/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
First exception upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within fifteen days.
Judges
Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Contract Formation, Vagueness and Embarrassment, Repudiation, Damages, Variation Clause
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Contract Formation Vagueness and Embarrassment Repudiation Damages Variation Clause

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eskom Holdings

Defendant

Lesole Agencies CC

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing or lack averments to sustain a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a signed contract document precludes the plaintiff from relying on the alleged agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the contractual clause limiting liability to zero rand bars the plaintiff's claim for consequential damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the conditions of the contract document (annexure 'A') clearly prescribe the processes to be followed for the conclusion of a contract. Where the mode of acceptance is stipulated, it must be followed for a contract to be valid. The plaintiff's particulars of claim were found to be vague and embarrassing, as they relied on an unsigned contract and contradictory versions of the agreement. The first exception was upheld, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to amend its summons and particulars of claim. The court declined to decide the second exception concerning the interpretation of the limitation of liability clause, holding that such questions should be determined...

Court Disposition

First exception upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within fifteen days.

Orders

  • The first exception is upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiff is granted an opportunity to remove the cause of the complaint within fifteen (15) days from the date of this order to amend its summons and particulars of claim.