Figo Putso Construction CC v Lereko Mining Supplies (Pty) Ltd (32630/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 134 (12 March 2014)

Figo Putso Construction CC v Lereko Mining Supplies (Pty) Ltd (32630/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 134 (12 March 2014)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing due to material inconsistencies between the annexures regarding delivery dates and the sequence of offer and acceptance, which were not explained. The plaintiff failed to plead the verbal part of the agreement, leaving the defendant unable to determine the case it must meet. The alleged repudiation was not supported by the content of annexure 'C', and the damages claimed were not particularised as required by Rule 18(10). The cumulative effect was to prejudice the defendant, who could not plead meaningfully to the claim. The exception was upheld, the particulars of claim were struck out, and the...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 134
Parties
Plaintiff: Figo Putso Construction CC; Defendant: Lereko Mining Supplies (Pty) Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2014
Case Number
32630/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Exception upheld; particulars of claim struck out; plaintiff granted leave to amend within 20 days; plaintiff ordered to pay costs.
Judges
Malindi
Legal Topics
Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Rule 18 Particularity, Exception Procedure, Damages Quantification
Civil Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Rule 18 Particularity Exception Procedure Damages Quantification

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 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Figo Putso Construction CC

Plaintiff

Lereko Mining Supplies (Pty) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing to the extent that the defendant is prejudiced.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has pleaded sufficient particularity regarding the terms of the agreement and the alleged breach.
  3. 3 Whether the damages claimed by the plaintiff are adequately particularised in accordance with Rule 18(10).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing due to material inconsistencies between the annexures regarding delivery dates and the sequence of offer and acceptance, which were not explained. The plaintiff failed to plead the verbal part of the agreement, leaving the defendant unable to determine the case it must meet. The alleged repudiation was not supported by the content of annexure 'C', and the damages claimed were not particularised as required by Rule 18(10). The cumulative effect was to prejudice the defendant, who could not plead meaningfully to the claim. The exception was upheld, the particulars of claim were struck out, and the...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; particulars of claim struck out; plaintiff granted leave to amend within 20 days; plaintiff ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld.
  • The particulars of claim are struck out.