Gammie N.O. and Others v Creative Counsel (PTY) Ltd and Another (20/44564) [2022] ZAGPJHC 792 (3 October 2022)

Gammie N.O. and Others v Creative Counsel (PTY) Ltd and Another (20/44564) [2022] ZAGPJHC 792 (3 October 2022)

The court held that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim were not vague and embarrassing. The allegations regarding the signed addendum to the lease agreement, though only an unsigned copy was available, were sufficient to meet procedural requirements, and the Trust could prove its terms by secondary evidence at trial. The defendants' complaints about lack of detail and failure to attach the signed addendum were not properly raised in the exception notice and could not be relied upon. Regarding the notice of extension, the court found that the particulars of claim did not need to specify the manner of service, and any challenge to validity was a matter for evidence at trial. On the...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 792
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Delroy Gammie N.O.; Plaintiff: Ronald Johan Tamboer N.O.; Plaintiff: Alan James Flynn Mandell N.O.; Plaintiff: Ria Sayanvala N.O.; Defendant: Creative Counsel (PTY) Ltd; Defendant: Publicis Groupe Holdings B.V.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2022
Case Number
20/44564
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim
Outcome
All three exceptions are dismissed with costs awarded against the defendants.
Judges
Strydom
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Lease Agreement, Secondary Evidence, Delictual Liability, Contractual and Delictual Concurrence, Damages to Property
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Delict Exception Procedure Lease Agreement Secondary Evidence Delictual Liability Contractual and Delictual Concurrence +1 more

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Delroy Gammie N.O.

Plaintiff

Ronald Johan Tamboer N.O.

Plaintiff

Alan James Flynn Mandell N.O.

Plaintiff

Ria Sayanvala N.O.

Plaintiff

Creative Counsel (PTY) Ltd

Defendant

Publicis Groupe Holdings B.V.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing due to lack of particularity regarding the signed addendum to the lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of extension of suspensive conditions complied with the lease agreement's requirements for service and form.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs may advance a delictual claim for damages to property where a contractual relationship exists and the lease agreement regulates the obligations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim were not vague and embarrassing. The allegations regarding the signed addendum to the lease agreement, though only an unsigned copy was available, were sufficient to meet procedural requirements, and the Trust could prove its terms by secondary evidence at trial. The defendants' complaints about lack of detail and failure to attach the signed addendum were not properly raised in the exception notice and could not be relied upon. Regarding the notice of extension, the court found that the particulars of claim did not need to specify the manner of service, and any challenge to validity was a matter for evidence at trial. On the...

Court Disposition

All three exceptions are dismissed with costs awarded against the defendants.

Orders

  • The First, Second and Third exceptions are dismissed.
  • The defendants are to pay the cost of the exceptions.