Fencecor Konstrucsie CC v Moses Kotane Local Municipality (950/2010) [2012] ZANWHC 4 (1 March 2012)

Fencecor Konstrucsie CC v Moses Kotane Local Municipality (950/2010) [2012] ZANWHC 4 (1 March 2012)

The court found that the substance of the issue raised in the second exception, namely that the pleadings do not disclose a cause of action, had already been fully disposed of in the first exception. Entertaining a second exception on the same ground would amount to unnecessary repetition and is contrary to the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel, which seek to prevent the reopening of matters that have already been adjudicated. The reasons advanced by the respondent for not raising the new grounds in the first exception did not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule. Furthermore, the second exception was filed outside the time allowed...

Citation
[2012] ZANWHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Fencecor Konstrucsie CC; Respondent: Moses Kotane Local Municipality
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 2012
Case Number
950/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim
Outcome
The second exception application by the defendant is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kgoele
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Uniform Rules of Court, Cause of Action
Civil Procedure Exception Procedure Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Uniform Rules of Court Cause of Action

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fencecor Konstrucsie CC

Applicant

Moses Kotane Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a second exception on the same ground against the same pleading is permissible after the first exception was dismissed.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's new reasons for exception constitute exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the general rule.
  3. 3 Whether the second exception was filed within the time allowed by the Uniform Rules of Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the substance of the issue raised in the second exception, namely that the pleadings do not disclose a cause of action, had already been fully disposed of in the first exception. Entertaining a second exception on the same ground would amount to unnecessary repetition and is contrary to the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel, which seek to prevent the reopening of matters that have already been adjudicated. The reasons advanced by the respondent for not raising the new grounds in the first exception did not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule. Furthermore, the second exception was filed outside the time allowed...

Court Disposition

The second exception application by the defendant is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's second exception application is dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.