Joletsa (Pty) Ltd v Kriel (ECJ 058/2005) [2005] ZAECHC 26 (13 June 2005)

Joletsa (Pty) Ltd v Kriel (ECJ 058/2005) [2005] ZAECHC 26 (13 June 2005)

The court found that the applicant's complaints regarding the respondent's replies to requests for further and better particulars were unfounded. The numbering issue was a minor defect easily resolved by common sense and communication between attorneys. The respondent's replies, when read contextually, provided sufficient information for the applicant to prepare for trial. Requests for details amounting to evidence were properly refused, as particulars for trial are not intended to elicit evidence but only what is strictly necessary for preparation. The applicant's approach was unnecessarily formalistic and ill-advised, amounting to an abuse of process. The application was dismissed as...

Citation
[2005] ZAECHC 26
Parties
Applicant: Joletsa (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Abraham Kriel
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2005
Case Number
058/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Compel Further and Better Particulars for Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Plasket
Legal Topics
Uniform Rules of Court, Particulars for Trial, Discretion of Court, Costs Awards
Civil Procedure Uniform Rules of Court Particulars for Trial Discretion of Court Costs Awards

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joletsa (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Abraham Kriel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Compel Further and Better Particulars for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to further and better particulars for trial from the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars sought are strictly necessary to enable the applicant to prepare for trial.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's replies to requests for particulars are sufficient under Rule 21 of the Uniform Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's complaints regarding the respondent's replies to requests for further and better particulars were unfounded. The numbering issue was a minor defect easily resolved by common sense and communication between attorneys. The respondent's replies, when read contextually, provided sufficient information for the applicant to prepare for trial. Requests for details amounting to evidence were properly refused, as particulars for trial are not intended to elicit evidence but only what is strictly necessary for preparation. The applicant's approach was unnecessarily formalistic and ill-advised, amounting to an abuse of process. The application was dismissed as...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.