Makushu and Others v Minister of Safety and Security (662/2011) [2016] ZALMPTHC 6 (1 February 2016)

Makushu and Others v Minister of Safety and Security (662/2011) [2016] ZALMPTHC 6 (1 February 2016)

The court found that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim were drafted in a manner that failed to disclose a cause of action, as they contained evidence, legal conclusions, opinions, and factual findings instead of material facts. This approach is contrary to the requirements of Rule 18(4) and the principle established in Buchner v Johannesburg Coin Co. The particulars were also found to be vague and embarrassing, making it difficult for the defendant to plead and causing prejudice. The court held that the exception must be upheld and granted the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their particulars of claim within thirty days.

Citation
[2016] ZALMPTHC 6
Parties
Plaintiff: Solomon Makushu; Plaintiff: Mbulaheni Ndou; Plaintiff: Rabelani Mbedzi; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 February 2016
Case Number
662/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; plaintiffs granted leave to amend particulars of claim within thirty days; costs reserved.
Judges
M V Semenya
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Vague and Embarrassing Pleadings, Cause of Action, Rule 18 4
Civil Procedure Pleading Requirements Vague and Embarrassing Pleadings Cause of Action Rule 18 4

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solomon Makushu

Plaintiff

Mbulaheni Ndou

Plaintiff

Rabelani Mbedzi

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' particulars of claim disclose a cause of action as required by law.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing to the extent that the defendant cannot plead to them.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim were drafted in a manner that failed to disclose a cause of action, as they contained evidence, legal conclusions, opinions, and factual findings instead of material facts. This approach is contrary to the requirements of Rule 18(4) and the principle established in Buchner v Johannesburg Coin Co. The particulars were also found to be vague and embarrassing, making it difficult for the defendant to plead and causing prejudice. The court held that the exception must be upheld and granted the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their particulars of claim within thirty days.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; plaintiffs granted leave to amend particulars of claim within thirty days; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld.
  • Plaintiffs are afforded the opportunity to remove the cause of complaint within thirty (30) days if they so wish.