Jayed Products and Services CC v Tarsus Distribution (Pty) Ltd (40974/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 306 (28 June 2019)

Jayed Products and Services CC v Tarsus Distribution (Pty) Ltd (40974/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 306 (28 June 2019)

The Court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing, particularly because the exclusive licence agreement, which established the plaintiff's locus standi, was not annexed as required by Rule 18(4). The method for calculating royalties was unclear and incomprehensible, and the particulars of claim failed to specify when the amount became due and payable, which is material for prescription. The Court held that these deficiencies prejudiced the defendant and that the exception must succeed. Leave to amend was granted to the plaintiff.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 306
Parties
Plaintiff: Jayed Products and Services CC; Defendant: Tarsus Distribution (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2019
Case Number
40974/2018
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; particulars of claim struck out; leave to amend granted; costs awarded to defendant.
Judges
Twala M L
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Oral Contract, Royalty Agreement
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception to Particulars of Claim Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Oral Contract Royalty Agreement

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jayed Products and Services CC

Plaintiff

Tarsus Distribution (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing to the extent that they prejudice the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim lack averments necessary to sustain a cause of action.
  3. 3 Whether the method of calculating royalties is sufficiently clear and comprehensible.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing, particularly because the exclusive licence agreement, which established the plaintiff's locus standi, was not annexed as required by Rule 18(4). The method for calculating royalties was unclear and incomprehensible, and the particulars of claim failed to specify when the amount became due and payable, which is material for prescription. The Court held that these deficiencies prejudiced the defendant and that the exception must succeed. Leave to amend was granted to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; particulars of claim struck out; leave to amend granted; costs awarded to defendant.

Orders

  • The excipient’s exception is upheld and the plaintiff’s particulars of claim are struck out.
  • The plaintiff is granted leave to substitute and/or amend such struck out particulars of claim within 20 days of the date of this order.