Madiro v Madibeng Local Municipality and Another (16592/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 667 (12 September 2021)

Madiro v Madibeng Local Municipality and Another (16592/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 667 (12 September 2021)

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were excipiable as they failed to set out the necessary material facts to sustain a cause of action against the first defendant. The plaintiff did not specify the constitutional or statutory obligations allegedly breached, nor did he plead facts supporting a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 667
Parties
Plaintiff: Stephen Mphedi Madiro; Defendant: Madibeng Local Municipality; Defendant: Bojanala Platinum District Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2021
Case Number
16592/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Application for Amendment
Outcome
Exception upheld; particulars of claim found excipiable and vague and embarrassing.
Judges
G Malindi
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Duty of Care, Cause of Action, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Land and Property Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Duty of Care Cause of Action Amendment of Pleadings

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Mphedi Madiro

Plaintiff

Madibeng Local Municipality

Defendant

Bojanala Platinum District Municipality

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Application for Amendment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the first defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's amendments to the particulars of claim were procedurally valid under Rule 28.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were excipiable as they failed to set out the necessary material facts to sustain a cause of action against the first defendant. The plaintiff did not specify the constitutional or statutory obligations allegedly breached, nor did he plead facts supporting a duty of care, causation, or the nature of damages suffered. The attempted amendments to the particulars of claim were found to be irregular steps, as the plaintiff failed to apply for leave to amend after objection as required by Rule 28(4). The exception raised by the first defendant remained live and had to be adjudicated before any further procedural steps could be taken. The...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; particulars of claim found excipiable and vague and embarrassing.

Orders

  • The first defendant's exception is upheld on the grounds that the particulars of claim disclose no cause of action and are vague and embarrassing.
  • The plaintiff is afforded ten days from the date of judgment to amend its particulars of claim, failing which the particulars of claim shall be struck out.