Kemp v Business Partners Ltd (232/2018) [2019] ZANCHC 28 (28 June 2019)

Kemp v Business Partners Ltd (232/2018) [2019] ZANCHC 28 (28 June 2019)

The court found that although the defendant's plea was unconventional and contained superfluous and irrelevant matter, it was not vague or embarrassing in the sense required by law. The plea addressed the substance of the allegations in the particulars of claim and did not prejudice the plaintiff's ability to reply. The court emphasized that the plea must be read as a whole and that isolated paragraphs should not be assessed without considering the complete pleading. The defendant's admissions and denials were not contradictory, and the plea disclosed a valid defence. The exceptions raised by the plaintiff were therefore dismissed as lacking merit.

Citation
[2019] ZANCHC 28
Parties
Plaintiff: Petrus Johannes Kemp; Defendant: Business Partners Ltd
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2019
Case Number
232/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Exception to Plea; Interlocutory
Outcome
Exceptions dismissed with costs.
Judges
Williams
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Rule 18 Uniform Rules, Exception to Plea, Confess and Avoid, Non Disclosure
Civil Procedure Pleading Requirements Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Rule 18 Uniform Rules Exception to Plea Confess and Avoid Non Disclosure

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

Parties

Petrus Johannes Kemp

Plaintiff

Business Partners Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Exception to Plea; Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's plea is vague and embarrassing and fails to comply with Rule 18(4) and 18(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the plea contains contradictory allegations that prejudice the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's plea fails to disclose a defence to the plaintiff's claim for setting aside a previous judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the defendant's plea was unconventional and contained superfluous and irrelevant matter, it was not vague or embarrassing in the sense required by law. The plea addressed the substance of the allegations in the particulars of claim and did not prejudice the plaintiff's ability to reply. The court emphasized that the plea must be read as a whole and that isolated paragraphs should not be assessed without considering the complete pleading. The defendant's admissions and denials were not contradictory, and the plea disclosed a valid defence. The exceptions raised by the plaintiff were therefore dismissed as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

Exceptions dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exceptions raised by the plaintiff are dismissed with costs.