Koos v Runstenburg Local Municipality and Another (1240/15) [2017] ZANWHC 56 (3 August 2017)

Koos v Runstenburg Local Municipality and Another (1240/15) [2017] ZANWHC 56 (3 August 2017)

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were excipiable on several grounds. Firstly, the plaintiff failed to define the legal duty owed by the first defendant, whether under common law or statute, and did not specify the statutory provisions relied upon. Secondly, the particulars of claim did not identify which defendant was alleged to be negligent or responsible for the omissions, causing prejudice to the defendants. Thirdly, the damages claimed were not properly particularised, with contradictions in the breakdown and inclusion of 'loss of a child' as a head of damage, which is not legally competent. The court found that these deficiencies rendered the particulars of...

Citation
[2017] ZANWHC 56
Parties
Plaintiff: Masire Monnamme Koos; Defendant: Rustenburg Local Municipality; Defendant: Thombsvest Trading
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2017
Case Number
1240/15
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; plaintiff afforded 10 days to amend particulars of claim, failing which the claim will be struck out; costs awarded to first defendant.
Judges
N. Gutta
Legal Topics
Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Cause of Action, Wrongfulness, Statutory Duty, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Cause of Action Wrongfulness Statutory Duty Quantum of Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masire Monnamme Koos

Plaintiff

Rustenburg Local Municipality

Defendant

Thombsvest Trading

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing to the extent that they prejudice the defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded the existence and breach of a legal duty, both common law and statutory.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were excipiable on several grounds. Firstly, the plaintiff failed to define the legal duty owed by the first defendant, whether under common law or statute, and did not specify the statutory provisions relied upon. Secondly, the particulars of claim did not identify which defendant was alleged to be negligent or responsible for the omissions, causing prejudice to the defendants. Thirdly, the damages claimed were not properly particularised, with contradictions in the breakdown and inclusion of 'loss of a child' as a head of damage, which is not legally competent. The court found that these deficiencies rendered the particulars of...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; plaintiff afforded 10 days to amend particulars of claim, failing which the claim will be struck out; costs awarded to first defendant.

Orders

  • First defendant's exception is upheld.
  • Plaintiff is afforded 10 days from the date of judgment to amend particulars of claim, failing which the claim shall be struck out.