Majatau v Mathibe and Another (2226/2009) [2010] ZAFSHC 105 (23 February 2010)

Majatau v Mathibe and Another (2226/2009) [2010] ZAFSHC 105 (23 February 2010)

The court found that the respondent's particulars of claim failed to disclose a cause of action, as they did not comply with the requirements for pleading either a delictual or contractual claim. The pleadings were a confusing mixture of allegations, submissions, statements of law, and evidence, making it impossible for the excipients to discern the nature of the action and adequately prepare a defence. The absence of a prayer in the notice of exception was irregular but not fatal, as no prejudice would be suffered by the respondent if the defect was condoned and an amendment granted. The court upheld the second exception and granted the respondent leave to amend his particulars of claim...

Citation
[2010] ZAFSHC 105
Parties
Applicant: Mike Mathibe; Applicant: GSL Correctional Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Johnson Majatau
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2010
Case Number
2226/2009
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Hearing and Order
Outcome
Exception upheld; respondent granted leave to amend particulars of claim within two months of service of order, failing which claim is dismissed with costs.
Judges
E. A. Moolla
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Pleading Requirements, Cause of Action, Contractual Claim, Delictual Claim
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception to Particulars of Claim Pleading Requirements Cause of Action Contractual Claim Delictual Claim

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

Parties

Mike Mathibe

Applicant

GSL Correctional Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Johnson Majatau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Hearing and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings comply with requirements for claims based on contract and delict.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a prayer in the notice of exception is fatal to the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's particulars of claim failed to disclose a cause of action, as they did not comply with the requirements for pleading either a delictual or contractual claim. The pleadings were a confusing mixture of allegations, submissions, statements of law, and evidence, making it impossible for the excipients to discern the nature of the action and adequately prepare a defence. The absence of a prayer in the notice of exception was irregular but not fatal, as no prejudice would be suffered by the respondent if the defect was condoned and an amendment granted. The court upheld the second exception and granted the respondent leave to amend his particulars of claim...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; respondent granted leave to amend particulars of claim within two months of service of order, failing which claim is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The amendment is granted incorporating the prayer in the notice of exception.
  • The second exception is upheld: the particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action.