Molefe and Another v Schmidt (27376/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 22 (7 February 2019)

Molefe and Another v Schmidt (27376/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 22 (7 February 2019)

The court found that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing, as they failed to plead the oral terms of the agreements and did not specify which payments related to which agreement. The reliance on numerous emails without clear identification of contractual terms did not provide a clear and concise statement of material facts as required by Rule 18(4). The defendant was not in a position to answer the claim, and the cause of action was not properly made out. The exception was therefore upheld.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 22
Parties
Plaintiff: Keith Ackerman; Plaintiff: Marone Ackerman; Defendant: Gideon Jacobus Schmidt
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 February 2019
Case Number
27376/2017
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; particulars of claim struck out; plaintiffs granted leave to amend within fifteen days.
Judges
Molefe
Legal Topics
Exception to Pleadings, Vague and Embarrassing, Cause of Action, Rule 18 Uniform Rules, Undue Enrichment
Civil Procedure Exception to Pleadings Vague and Embarrassing Cause of Action Rule 18 Uniform Rules Undue 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Ackerman

Plaintiff

Marone Ackerman

Plaintiff

Gideon Jacobus Schmidt

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim lack averments necessary to sustain a cause of action.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs failed to plead the oral terms and specify payments under two agreements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing, as they failed to plead the oral terms of the agreements and did not specify which payments related to which agreement. The reliance on numerous emails without clear identification of contractual terms did not provide a clear and concise statement of material facts as required by Rule 18(4). The defendant was not in a position to answer the claim, and the cause of action was not properly made out. The exception was therefore upheld.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; particulars of claim struck out; plaintiffs granted leave to amend within fifteen days.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiffs' particulars of claim are struck out.