Lifamisa and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (34798/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1196 (23 August 2023)

Lifamisa and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (34798/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1196 (23 August 2023)

The Court found that the Plaintiffs' Particulars of Claim failed to allege the essential elements required to sustain a cause of action in delict, including an act or omission by the Defendant, wrongfulness, fault, harm, and causation. The damages claimed were not pleaded with sufficient particularity, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1196
Parties
Plaintiff: Ndivhuwo Lifamisa; Plaintiff: Melusi Zwane; Plaintiff: Gezani Baloyi; Plaintiff: Thokozani Dladla; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2023
Case Number
34798/2021
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Defendant's exception upheld; impugned paragraphs struck out; Plaintiffs granted leave to amend; costs awarded against Plaintiffs.
Judges
B.C. Wanless
Legal Topics
Exception to Pleadings, Vague and Embarrassing, Cause of Action, Quantification of Damages, Aquilian Action, Actio Iniuriarum
Civil Procedure Delict Exception to Pleadings Vague and Embarrassing Cause of Action Quantification of Damages Aquilian Action Actio Iniuriarum

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ndivhuwo Lifamisa

Plaintiff

Melusi Zwane

Plaintiff

Gezani Baloyi

Plaintiff

Thokozani Dladla

Plaintiff

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiffs' Particulars of Claim disclose sufficient averments to sustain a cause of action in delict.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs' claim for damages is pleaded with sufficient particularity to enable the Defendant to plead thereto.
  3. 3 Whether subparagraphs 7.1 to 7.6 of the Particulars of Claim are vague and embarrassing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Plaintiffs' Particulars of Claim failed to allege the essential elements required to sustain a cause of action in delict, including an act or omission by the Defendant, wrongfulness, fault, harm, and causation. The damages claimed were not pleaded with sufficient particularity, and the pleadings confused the Aquilian action and actio iniuriarum. As a result, the Defendant was unable to plead to the claim. The exception was upheld, and the impugned paragraphs were struck out. The Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their Particulars of Claim within fifteen days, failing which the Defendant may apply for dismissal of the action. Costs were awarded against the...

Court Disposition

Defendant's exception upheld; impugned paragraphs struck out; Plaintiffs granted leave to amend; costs awarded against Plaintiffs.

Orders

  • The Defendant's exception is upheld.
  • Subparagraphs 7.1 to 7.6 of the Plaintiffs' Particulars of Claim are struck out.