Farmisco Proprietary Limited v Gerrit Coetzee Attorneys Incorporated (75672/16) [2018] ZAGPPHC 860 (7 December 2018)

Farmisco Proprietary Limited v Gerrit Coetzee Attorneys Incorporated (75672/16) [2018] ZAGPPHC 860 (7 December 2018)

The Court found that the Plaintiff's particulars of claim, as amended, were not excipiable and provided sufficient material facts to enable the Defendant to plead. Any vagueness or lack of particularity could be cured by the furnishing of further particulars in terms of Rule 21 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The Defendant failed to demonstrate serious prejudice that could not be remedied by costs or further particulars. Accordingly, the exception was dismissed and the Plaintiff's application to amend its particulars of claim was granted.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 860
Parties
Applicant: Farmisco Proprietary Limited; Respondent: Gerrit Coetzee Attorneys Incorporated
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 December 2018
Case Number
75672/16
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Application for Leave to Amend and Exception Heard Together
Judges
P.M. Mabuse
Legal Topics
Exception to Pleadings, Amendment of Particulars of Claim, Negligence, Breach of Mandate, Vagueness and Embarrassment
Civil Procedure Delict Exception to Pleadings Amendment of Particulars of Claim Negligence Breach of Mandate Vagueness and Embarrassment

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farmisco Proprietary Limited

Applicant

Gerrit Coetzee Attorneys Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Application for Leave to Amend and Exception Heard Together

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendment to the particulars of claim renders the pleading excipiable.
  2. 2 Whether the exception to the particulars of claim should be upheld due to vagueness and embarrassment.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff's particulars of claim provide sufficient particularity to enable the Defendant to plead.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Plaintiff's particulars of claim, as amended, were not excipiable and provided sufficient material facts to enable the Defendant to plead. Any vagueness or lack of particularity could be cured by the furnishing of further particulars in terms of Rule 21 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The Defendant failed to demonstrate serious prejudice that could not be remedied by costs or further particulars. Accordingly, the exception was dismissed and the Plaintiff's application to amend its particulars of claim was granted.