South Africa Judgment

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Maboni Projects (Pty) Ltd v Motheo Construction Group and Another (2023/023364) [2025] ZAGPPHC 498 (16 May 2025)

Civil Procedure Exception to Pleadings Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Rule 30 Application

Citation: [2025] ZAGPPHC 498
Status: Judgment
Jurisdiction: South Africa
Court: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Panel: H F Jacobs
Case number: 2023/023364

More details

Court: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Panel: H F Jacobs
Case number: 2023/023364

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

Holding and result

The court found that all the complaints raised by the first defendant in its notice of exception were valid. The plaintiff's particulars of claim were so vague and embarrassing that, if allowed to stand, they would make it impossible for a trial court to recognise the claim, regardless of the facts that might emerge at trial. The purpose of pleadings is to distil the dispute, and the plaintiff's particulars failed to meet this requirement. Accordingly, the exception was upheld, and the particulars of claim were struck out.

Court disposition

Exception upheld; particulars of claim struck out with costs.

Orders

The exception is upheld with costs and the particulars of claim is struck out.
The plaintiff is afforded 30 days from the date of this order to deliver amended particulars of claim, if so advised.
The costs awarded include the costs of counsel on scale B.

Material facts

Parties

Maboni Projects (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Motheo Construction Group

Defendant Counsel: Adv S Mchunu

Koert Menziwa Ceiling and Partition (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural history

Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Questions and positions

Legal issues

01
Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing and thus excipiable.
02
Whether the particulars of claim comply with the rules of court regarding pleadings.
03
Whether the exception should be upheld and the particulars of claim struck out.

Party arguments

Applicant: The first defendant argued that the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing, failing to comply with the rules of court, and that the defects are such that the pleading cannot be allowed to stand. The defendant catalogued specific grounds of objection in the notice of exception, contending that the particulars do not distil the dispute and would render a trial impossible regardless of the facts.
Respondent: The plaintiff initially challenged the exception with a notice and application in terms of rule 30 but did not persist with this process. There was no appearance for the plaintiff at the hearing, and no substantive argument was advanced in opposition to the exception.

Court’s reasoning

Legal principles

01
Tembani v President of the RSA 2023 (1) SA 432 (SCA) at [16]

A pleading must distil the dispute and enable the trial court to recognise the claim; failure to do so renders the pleading excipiable as vague and embarrassing.

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that all the complaints raised by the first defendant in its notice of exception were valid. The plaintiff's particulars of claim were so vague and embarrassing that, if allowed to stand, they would make it impossible for a trial court to recognise the claim, regardless of the facts that might emerge at trial. The purpose of pleadings is to distil the dispute, and the plaintiff's particulars failed to meet this requirement. Accordingly, the exception was upheld, and the particulars of claim were struck out.

Obiter and limits

The plaintiff did not persist with its rule 30 application and failed to appear at the hearing, resulting in no opposition to the exception.
The costs awarded include the costs of counsel on scale B.

Court disposition

Exception upheld; particulars of claim struck out with costs.

The exception is upheld with costs and the particulars of claim is struck out.
The plaintiff is afforded 30 days from the date of this order to deliver amended particulars of claim, if so advised.
The costs awarded include the costs of counsel on scale B.

Source and reliance status

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document Download judgment PDF

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Judgment

[2025] ZAGPPHC 498

REPUBLIC

OF SOUTH AFRICA

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE Number: 2023/023364

(1) REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3) REVISED: NO

16 May 2025

In the matters between:-

MABONI PROJECTS (PTY) LTD

Plaintiff

and

MOTHEO

CONSTRUCTION GROUP

1st Defendant/Excipient

KOERT

MENZIWA CEILING AND PARTITION

(PTY)

LTD

2nd Defendant

JUDGMENT

JACOBS AJ

[1] This is exception taken by the first defendant to the plaintiff’s particulars of claim on the basis that it is vague and embarrasing. The grounds of objection are catalogued in the notice of exception and include reference to various rules of court which the plaintiff did not comply with which results in the alleged excepiability of its particulars of claim.

[2] Initially the plaintiff challenged the first defendant’s exception with a notice and application in terms of rule 30 but that process was not persisted with. The matter was heard in open court and there was no appearnce on 13 or 14 May 2025 on behalf of the plaintiff.

[3] All the complaints catalogued by the first defendant in its notice of exception dated 10 July 2023 are valid. In my view, the pleading, if allowed to stand, shall make it impossible for a trial court to recognise the claim irrespective of the facts as they might emerge at the trial. It is one of the purposes of a pleading to distil the dispute by way of pleading and the plaintiff’s particulars of claim falls foul of this requirement.[1]

[4] Under the circumstances I grant the following order:

1. The exception is upheld with costs and the particulars of claim is struck out.

2. The plaintiff is afforded 30 days of the date of this order to, if so advised, deliver an amended particulars of claim.

3. The costs awarded in 1 above shall include the costs of counsel on scale B.

H F JACOBS

ACTING Judge of the High Court

For the excipient: Adv S Mchunu Instructed by: Cox Yeats Attorneys Incorporated C/O Couzyn Hertzog & Horak For the respondent: No appearance Heard on: 12 May 2025 Date of Judgment: 16 May 2025

[1] See Tembani v President of the RSA 2023 (1) SA 432 (SCA) at [16]

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Tembani v President of the RSA 2023 (1) SA 432 (SCA)

Case cited

Uniform Rules of Court

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.