Mahlangu and Another v Millard (55439/2015) [2018] ZAGPJHC 640 (28 September 2018)

Mahlangu and Another v Millard (55439/2015) [2018] ZAGPJHC 640 (28 September 2018)

The court found that the defendants' notice in terms of rule 23(1) was procedurally irregular and invalid, as it did not comply with the requirement to afford the plaintiff 15 days to remove the cause of complaint before filing the exception. On the merits, the court held that clause 14.1 and 14.1.1 of the agreement do not preclude the plaintiff from claiming damages for breach, as the indemnity applies only to losses suffered by the purchasers attributable to liabilities of the corporation arising prior to the effective date, not to damages suffered by the plaintiff due to breach. The court further found that the particulars of claim disclose a valid cause of action and that the...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 640
Parties
Applicant: Hans Themba Mahlangu; Applicant: Robert Madzonga; Respondent: Brian Percival de Thorpe Millard
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2018
Case Number
55439/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Defendants' exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
S Weiner
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Contract Interpretation, Damages for Breach, Close Corporation Membership
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Contract Interpretation Damages for Breach Close Corporation Membership

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hans Themba Mahlangu

Applicant

Robert Madzonga

Applicant

Brian Percival de Thorpe Millard

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' exception to the plaintiff's particulars of claim is procedurally valid under rule 23(1).
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action in law.
  3. 3 Whether clause 14.1 and 14.1.1 of the agreement preclude the plaintiff's claim for damages for breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants' notice in terms of rule 23(1) was procedurally irregular and invalid, as it did not comply with the requirement to afford the plaintiff 15 days to remove the cause of complaint before filing the exception. On the merits, the court held that clause 14.1 and 14.1.1 of the agreement do not preclude the plaintiff from claiming damages for breach, as the indemnity applies only to losses suffered by the purchasers attributable to liabilities of the corporation arising prior to the effective date, not to damages suffered by the plaintiff due to breach. The court further found that the particulars of claim disclose a valid cause of action and that the...

Court Disposition

Defendants' exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendants' exception is dismissed with costs.