Fast and Easy Developers CC v City of Tshwane (Energy and Electricity Division) (37401/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 107 (10 September 2010)

Fast and Easy Developers CC v City of Tshwane (Energy and Electricity Division) (37401/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 107 (10 September 2010)

The court found that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing and failed to comply with Rule 18(4) by not identifying the relevant portions of annexures relied upon and the persons who allegedly represented the defendant. The particulars of claim did not sufficiently allege the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the contract. The court held that the excipient's arguments were persuasive and that the exception should be upheld. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend its particulars of claim within 20 days.

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 107
Parties
Plaintiff: Fast and Easy Developers CC; Defendant: City of Tshwane (Energy and Electricity Division)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2010
Case Number
37401/09
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 20 days.
Judges
Goodey AJ
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Rule 18 Compliance, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Rule 18 Compliance Amendment of Pleadings

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fast and Easy Developers CC

Plaintiff

City of Tshwane (Energy and Electricity Division)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim disclose the necessary averments to sustain a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing in terms of Rule 18(4).
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff sufficiently identified the portions of annexures relied upon and the persons representing the defendant for vicarious liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing and failed to comply with Rule 18(4) by not identifying the relevant portions of annexures relied upon and the persons who allegedly represented the defendant. The particulars of claim did not sufficiently allege the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the contract. The court held that the excipient's arguments were persuasive and that the exception should be upheld. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend its particulars of claim within 20 days.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 20 days.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The plaintiff is granted 20 days within which to amend its particulars of claim.