Leithcon Earthmoving CC v Matlala and Another (2015/82835) [2017] ZAGPPHC 257 (7 June 2017)

Leithcon Earthmoving CC v Matlala and Another (2015/82835) [2017] ZAGPPHC 257 (7 June 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim in respect of the alternative cause of action were both vague and embarrassing and did not disclose a cause of action. The plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing liability on the part of the second defendant or facts supporting the claim that the first defendant is personally liable for the debts of the second defendant under section 63(a) of the Close Corporation Act. Applying the principles from Levitan v Newhaven Holiday Enterprises CC, the court held that the defendants would be seriously prejudiced if required to plead to the particulars as they stand, as they would be unable to properly prepare to meet the plaintiff's...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 257
Parties
Plaintiff: Leithcon Earthmoving CC; Defendant: Matlala, Hosea Layton; Defendant: H L Matlala Properties t/a Gorogang Plant Hire
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2017
Case Number
2015/82835
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; plaintiff's particulars of claim relating to the alternative claim are struck out with leave to amend.
Judges
L Adams
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Close Corporation Liability, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Close Corporation Liability 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leithcon Earthmoving CC

Plaintiff

Matlala, Hosea Layton

Defendant

H L Matlala Properties t/a Gorogang Plant Hire

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim in respect of the alternative cause of action are vague and embarrassing.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim disclose sufficient averments to sustain a cause of action under section 63(a) of the Close Corporation Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim in respect of the alternative cause of action were both vague and embarrassing and did not disclose a cause of action. The plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing liability on the part of the second defendant or facts supporting the claim that the first defendant is personally liable for the debts of the second defendant under section 63(a) of the Close Corporation Act. Applying the principles from Levitan v Newhaven Holiday Enterprises CC, the court held that the defendants would be seriously prejudiced if required to plead to the particulars as they stand, as they would be unable to properly prepare to meet the plaintiff's...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; plaintiff's particulars of claim relating to the alternative claim are struck out with leave to amend.

Orders

  • The exception of the first and second defendants to the plaintiff’s particulars of claim relating to the alternative claim as contained in paragraph 19 is upheld.
  • The plaintiff is afforded 10 days from date of this order within which to amend its particulars of claim.