Menzin (Pty) Ltd v Edwin Contruction (Pty) Ltd (657/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 351 (4 September 2023)

Menzin (Pty) Ltd v Edwin Contruction (Pty) Ltd (657/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 351 (4 September 2023)

The court found that the particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing and failed to disclose a cause of action, as they lacked essential averments regarding the completion of works, invoicing, remuneration, and breach of contract. The plaintiff also failed to plead the basis for damages and the contractual review process. However, the court held that jurisdiction was established as the plaintiff is domiciled within the court's area and at least one element of the contract was alleged to have occurred there. The exception was upheld on the third, first fourth, and fifth grounds, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend its pleadings within thirty days. Costs were awarded against...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 351
Parties
Plaintiff: Menzin (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Edwin Construction (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2023
Case Number
657/2023
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld on the third, first fourth, and fifth grounds; plaintiff granted leave to amend within thirty days; costs awarded against plaintiff.
Judges
P R Cronjé
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Vagueness and Embarrassment, Jurisdiction, Contractual Damages
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception to Particulars of Claim Vagueness and Embarrassment Jurisdiction Contractual Damages

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

Parties

Menzin (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Edwin Construction (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing and fail to disclose a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction of the court.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff adequately pleaded the basis for damages and contractual breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing and failed to disclose a cause of action, as they lacked essential averments regarding the completion of works, invoicing, remuneration, and breach of contract. The plaintiff also failed to plead the basis for damages and the contractual review process. However, the court held that jurisdiction was established as the plaintiff is domiciled within the court's area and at least one element of the contract was alleged to have occurred there. The exception was upheld on the third, first fourth, and fifth grounds, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend its pleadings within thirty days. Costs were awarded against...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld on the third, first fourth, and fifth grounds; plaintiff granted leave to amend within thirty days; costs awarded against plaintiff.

Orders

  • The exception in respect of the third, first fourth, and fifth grounds of exception succeeds.
  • The Plaintiff is granted opportunity to amend its pleadings within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Order.