Mamasedi and Others v Gomez and Others (39819/2016) [2021] ZAGPJHC 875 (28 April 2021)

Mamasedi and Others v Gomez and Others (39819/2016) [2021] ZAGPJHC 875 (28 April 2021)

The court held that the plaintiffs' declaration did not comply with Rule 18(10) of the Uniform Rules of Court, as it failed to set out the damages in a manner that would enable the defendant to reasonably assess the quantum. The declaration merely stated an estimated amount for all plaintiffs without specifying the pension deductions made from each salary or providing a calculation method. The reliance on Annexure 'A' was insufficient, as it did not disclose the necessary details. The alternative claim based on unjust enrichment was also inadequately pleaded, lacking essential averments. The court found that the only proper way to calculate the quantum was by reference to individual...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 875
Parties
Applicant: Sello Mamasedi; Applicant: Thanyani Simani; Applicant: Lebohang David Motlatsi; Applicant: Baba Isaac Mofokeng; Applicant: Frans Vusi Lebera; Applicant: Leruno Lucas Motsoagae; Applicant: Rajoalane Maria Tsotetsi; Respondent: Antonio Fernandez Gomez; Respondent: Pension Funds Adjudicator; Respondent: Anneke Barnard N.O.; Respondent: Kgashane Christopher Monyela N.O.; Respondent: Suraiya Ballim; Respondent: The Metal Industries Benefit Funds Administrators (MIBFA); Respondent: The Master of the High Court
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 April 2021
Case Number
39819/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Declaration
Outcome
Application for leave to amend dismissed; costs awarded against the plaintiffs on a party-party scale.
Judges
P V Ternent
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Quantification of Damages, Contractual Liability, Unjust Enrichment
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Pleading Requirements Quantification of Damages Contractual Liability Unjust Enrichment

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

Parties

Sello Mamasedi

Applicant

Thanyani Simani

Applicant

Lebohang David Motlatsi

Applicant

Baba Isaac Mofokeng

Applicant

Frans Vusi Lebera

Applicant

Leruno Lucas Motsoagae

Applicant

Rajoalane Maria Tsotetsi

Applicant

Antonio Fernandez Gomez

Respondent

Pension Funds Adjudicator

Respondent

Anneke Barnard N.O.

Respondent

Kgashane Christopher Monyela N.O.

Respondent

Suraiya Ballim

Respondent

The Metal Industries Benefit Funds Administrators (MIBFA)

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Declaration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' declaration complies with Rule 18(10) of the Uniform Rules of Court regarding the quantification of damages.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment to the declaration sufficiently sets out the basis and calculation of the damages claimed.
  3. 3 Whether the alternative claim based on unjust enrichment is properly pleaded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs' declaration did not comply with Rule 18(10) of the Uniform Rules of Court, as it failed to set out the damages in a manner that would enable the defendant to reasonably assess the quantum. The declaration merely stated an estimated amount for all plaintiffs without specifying the pension deductions made from each salary or providing a calculation method. The reliance on Annexure 'A' was insufficient, as it did not disclose the necessary details. The alternative claim based on unjust enrichment was also inadequately pleaded, lacking essential averments. The court found that the only proper way to calculate the quantum was by reference to individual...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend dismissed; costs awarded against the plaintiffs on a party-party scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to amend the declaration, in accordance with the notice of amendment dated 1 March 2019, is dismissed.
  • The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved on the party-party scale.