Matu v Minister of Safety of Security (1115/07) [2008] ZAECHC 69 (29 May 2008)

Matu v Minister of Safety of Security (1115/07) [2008] ZAECHC 69 (29 May 2008)

The court held that paragraph 8.3 of the particulars of claim, when read together with paragraphs 6 and 7, is not vague and embarrassing. The damages claimed are sufficiently linked to the pleaded causes of action, and any uncertainty regarding the apportionment of damages between unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution can be addressed by a request for further particulars for trial. The exception was improperly directed at a subparagraph rather than the whole cause of action, contrary to established legal principles. The court found no embarrassment that would prevent the respondent from pleading, and thus the exception was dismissed.

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 69
Parties
Applicant: Sivuyile Matu; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2008
Case Number
1115/07
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
The exception is dismissed with costs awarded against the defendant.
Judges
L.P. Pakade
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Damages Pleading, Malicious Prosecution, Unlawful Arrest
Civil Procedure Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Damages Pleading Malicious Prosecution Unlawful Arrest

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

Parties

Sivuyile Matu

Applicant

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 8.3 of the particulars of claim is vague and embarrassing.
  2. 2 Whether the damages claimed for unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution must be separately specified.
  3. 3 Whether the exception should be upheld or dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that paragraph 8.3 of the particulars of claim, when read together with paragraphs 6 and 7, is not vague and embarrassing. The damages claimed are sufficiently linked to the pleaded causes of action, and any uncertainty regarding the apportionment of damages between unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution can be addressed by a request for further particulars for trial. The exception was improperly directed at a subparagraph rather than the whole cause of action, contrary to established legal principles. The court found no embarrassment that would prevent the respondent from pleading, and thus the exception was dismissed.

Court Disposition

The exception is dismissed with costs awarded against the defendant.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the exception.