Maghilda Investments (Pty) Limited and Others v Centrus (Pty) Ltd and Others (76921/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 282 (15 May 2019)

Maghilda Investments (Pty) Limited and Others v Centrus (Pty) Ltd and Others (76921/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 282 (15 May 2019)

The court held that the plaintiffs' amended particulars of claim, in respect of the first defendant group's first exception, sufficiently pleaded facts to justify the existence of a legal duty to disclose adverse financial information. The facts alleged in paragraph 30 of the amended particulars of claim must be accepted as true at the exception stage. However, the plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to establish that they would have entered into valid agreements with RCR, particularly regarding the necessity of ministerial consent under SALA. The damages pleaded were found to be vague and embarrassing, as they were calculated on the basis of the position had the void agreements...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 282
Parties
Plaintiff: Maghilda Investments (Pty) Limited; Plaintiff: Jonathan Bruce Sandler N.O.; Plaintiff: Geoffrey Alan West N.O.; Plaintiff: Anthony De Aguiar N.O.; Defendant: Centurus (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Nuance Investments (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Adrian Rissik van der Byl; Defendant: Henry Richard van der Byl; Defendant: Mahendra Naidu; Defendant: Trevor Joseph Glass; Defendant: Jack Stuart Prentice; Defendant: Robert James McMillan
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2019
Case Number
76921/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exceptions by the first defendant group (except the second exception) and by the fifth and sixth defendants (except the first ground of the first exception) are upheld. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their particulars of claim within twenty days. Plaintiffs are ordered to pay costs occasioned by the amendment...
Judges
E.M. Kubushi
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Fraudulent Non Disclosure, Negligent Non Disclosure, Ministerial Consent, Pure Economic Loss, Fiduciary Duty
Civil Procedure Land and Property Delict Exception Procedure Fraudulent Non Disclosure Negligent Non Disclosure Ministerial Consent Pure Economic Loss +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maghilda Investments (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff

Jonathan Bruce Sandler N.O.

Plaintiff

Geoffrey Alan West N.O.

Plaintiff

Anthony De Aguiar N.O.

Plaintiff

Centurus (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Nuance Investments (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Adrian Rissik van der Byl

Defendant

Henry Richard van der Byl

Defendant

Mahendra Naidu

Defendant

Trevor Joseph Glass

Defendant

Jack Stuart Prentice

Defendant

Robert James McMillan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' amended particulars of claim disclose a cause of action for damages based on fraudulent or negligent non-disclosure of adverse financial information.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged non-disclosures are causally linked to the plaintiffs' loss of profits and non-conclusion of an agreement with RCR.
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim sufficiently allege a legal duty on the defendants to disclose adverse financial information.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs' amended particulars of claim, in respect of the first defendant group's first exception, sufficiently pleaded facts to justify the existence of a legal duty to disclose adverse financial information. The facts alleged in paragraph 30 of the amended particulars of claim must be accepted as true at the exception stage. However, the plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to establish that they would have entered into valid agreements with RCR, particularly regarding the necessity of ministerial consent under SALA. The damages pleaded were found to be vague and embarrassing, as they were calculated on the basis of the position had the void agreements...

Court Disposition

Exceptions by the first defendant group (except the second exception) and by the fifth and sixth defendants (except the first ground of the first exception) are upheld. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their particulars of claim within twenty days. Plaintiffs are ordered to pay costs occasioned by the amendment...

Orders

  • Leave to amend the plaintiffs' particulars of claim as set out in prayer 1 and 2 of the notice of intention to amend dated 3 August 2018 is granted.
  • Plaintiffs are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the costs occasioned by the amendment on an unopposed scale as well as costs of objection to paragraph 3 of the notice of intention to amend.