ICM Clearing and Forwarding (Pty) Ltd and Another v Croninent Chrome SA (Pty) Ltd (A5036/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 245 (12 June 2017)

ICM Clearing and Forwarding (Pty) Ltd and Another v Croninent Chrome SA (Pty) Ltd (A5036/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 245 (12 June 2017)

The court held that the issue of admissibility of hearsay evidence arising from a section 418 Companies Act enquiry should not be determined at the exception stage, but rather at trial. The replication based on estoppel was not excipiable merely because it relied on evidence that might be inadmissible; it was possible that admissible evidence could be led at trial to support the claim. The exception should only be upheld if no conceivable admissible evidence could cure the deficiency, which was not the case here. Therefore, the appeal succeeded, the order striking out the replication was set aside, and the exception was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 245
Parties
Appellant: ICM Clearing and Forwarding (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Kurt Robert Knoop NO; Respondent: Croninet Chrome SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2017
Case Number
A5036/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Exception Upholding and Striking Out of Replication
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside; exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
S Weiner, D S S Moshidi, T P Mudau
Legal Topics
Exception to Pleadings, Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence, Estoppel, Companies Act Section 418 Enquiry
Civil Procedure Exception to Pleadings Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence Estoppel Companies Act Section 418 Enquiry

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ICM Clearing and Forwarding (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Kurt Robert Knoop NO

Appellant

Croninet Chrome SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Exception Upholding and Striking Out of Replication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the replication based on estoppel contained inadmissible evidence and was therefore excipiable.
  2. 2 Whether evidence from a section 418 Companies Act enquiry can be admitted against a party other than the witness.
  3. 3 Whether the exception should have been upheld at the pleading stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the issue of admissibility of hearsay evidence arising from a section 418 Companies Act enquiry should not be determined at the exception stage, but rather at trial. The replication based on estoppel was not excipiable merely because it relied on evidence that might be inadmissible; it was possible that admissible evidence could be led at trial to support the claim. The exception should only be upheld if no conceivable admissible evidence could cure the deficiency, which was not the case here. Therefore, the appeal succeeded, the order striking out the replication was set aside, and the exception was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside; exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.