Labucon Resources (Pty) Ltd v Nikkel Trading 179 (Pty) Ltd (5518/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 781 (20 October 2022)

Labucon Resources (Pty) Ltd v Nikkel Trading 179 (Pty) Ltd (5518/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 781 (20 October 2022)

The court held that a notice of exception is a proper response to a notice of bar and that the contrary view would defeat the purpose of excepting to a pleading. The authorities in this division support the entitlement of a party to except to a pleading alleged to be vague and embarrassing, even after the expiry of the initial period for filing a plea. The court found that the Defendant's notice of exception was not irregular and dismissed the Plaintiff's application under Rule 30(2).

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 781
Parties
Applicant: Labucon Resources (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Nikkel Trading 179 (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 October 2022
Case Number
5518/2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Set Aside Notice as Irregular Step
Outcome
Plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 30(2) is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Strijdom
Legal Topics
Rule 30 Irregular Steps, Rule 23 Exception, Notice of Bar, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading
Civil Procedure Rule 30 Irregular Steps Rule 23 Exception Notice of Bar Vague and Embarrassing Pleading

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Labucon Resources (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Nikkel Trading 179 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Set Aside Notice as Irregular Step

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's notice in terms of Rule 23(1)(a) was an irregular step and ought to be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was entitled to deliver a notice of exception after the notice of bar expired.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a notice of exception is a proper response to a notice of bar and that the contrary view would defeat the purpose of excepting to a pleading. The authorities in this division support the entitlement of a party to except to a pleading alleged to be vague and embarrassing, even after the expiry of the initial period for filing a plea. The court found that the Defendant's notice of exception was not irregular and dismissed the Plaintiff's application under Rule 30(2).

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 30(2) is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to set aside the Defendant's notice in terms of Rule 23(1)(a) as an irregular step is dismissed.
  • The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the application.