Mc Food Investments (Pty) Ltd v Blajohn Properties (Pty) Ltd (3840/2011) [2014] ZAECPEHC 3 (13 February 2014)

Mc Food Investments (Pty) Ltd v Blajohn Properties (Pty) Ltd (3840/2011) [2014] ZAECPEHC 3 (13 February 2014)

The court found that the particulars of claim were inherently contradictory and failed to distinguish between obligations pre and post assignment. The plaintiff's reliance on waiver was unsupported by the written agreement, which contained a non-variation clause requiring written consent for any alteration. The lack of particularity and the contradictions rendered the particulars vague and embarrassing, prejudicing the defendant. The defendant cannot be held liable for breaches occurring before the effective date of assignment. Both exceptions were upheld, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend its particulars of claim to cure the deficiencies.

Citation
[2014] ZAECPEHC 3
Parties
Plaintiff: Mc Food Investments (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Blajohn Properties (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Case Number
3840/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exceptions upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 15 days.
Judges
Chetty
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Leave to Amend, Assignment of Lease
Civil Procedure Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Leave to Amend Assignment of Lease

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mc Food Investments (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Blajohn Properties (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing to the extent that they are excipiable.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant can be held liable for damages arising from obligations prior to the effective date of assignment.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's reliance on waiver is supported by sufficient particularity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the particulars of claim were inherently contradictory and failed to distinguish between obligations pre and post assignment. The plaintiff's reliance on waiver was unsupported by the written agreement, which contained a non-variation clause requiring written consent for any alteration. The lack of particularity and the contradictions rendered the particulars vague and embarrassing, prejudicing the defendant. The defendant cannot be held liable for breaches occurring before the effective date of assignment. Both exceptions were upheld, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend its particulars of claim to cure the deficiencies.

Court Disposition

Exceptions upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 15 days.

Orders

  • The exceptions are upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiff is granted leave to amend its particulars of claim within 15 days of the date of this judgment to cure the deficiencies.