First Rand Bank Limited v Jooste (2012/27752) [2015] ZAGPJHC 11 (3 February 2015)

First Rand Bank Limited v Jooste (2012/27752) [2015] ZAGPJHC 11 (3 February 2015)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim, if proved, are sufficient to sustain an action for damages against the defendant for breach of the employment contract. The failure to plead the name of the representative who concluded the contract on behalf of the plaintiff constitutes a breach of Rule 18(6), but does not render the particulars of claim excipiable. The terms relied upon by the plaintiff are sufficiently pleaded and incorporated by reference into the employment agreement and supporting documents. The defendant is able to identify the representative and the terms in question from the documents attached. The particulars of claim are not vague and embarrassing, and...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 11
Parties
Applicant: First Rand Bank Limited; Defendant: Luke Jooste
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2015
Case Number
2012/27752
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
Redman
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Employment Contract, Pleading Requirements, Vague and Embarrassing, Damages Calculation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Employment Contract Pleading Requirements Vague and Embarrassing Damages Calculation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Rand Bank Limited

Applicant

Luke Jooste

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim comply with Uniform Rule 18(6).
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim, if proved, are sufficient to sustain an action for damages against the defendant for breach of the employment contract. The failure to plead the name of the representative who concluded the contract on behalf of the plaintiff constitutes a breach of Rule 18(6), but does not render the particulars of claim excipiable. The terms relied upon by the plaintiff are sufficiently pleaded and incorporated by reference into the employment agreement and supporting documents. The defendant is able to identify the representative and the terms in question from the documents attached. The particulars of claim are not vague and embarrassing, and...

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the exception.