Molema Projects and Developers CC v L F Bantjies Civil t/a Elcon Civil (853/2011) [2012] ZANCHC 33 (17 February 2012)

Molema Projects and Developers CC v L F Bantjies Civil t/a Elcon Civil (853/2011) [2012] ZANCHC 33 (17 February 2012)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were vague, embarrassing, and contradictory. The written contract annexed to the particulars did not support the alleged entitlement to 84% of the remuneration received by the plaintiff, and the calculation of the overpayment was not reconcilable with the facts pleaded. The defects in the particulars of claim prejudiced the defendant, as it would be unable to plead meaningfully except by denying all allegations, which would itself be excipiable. The exception was therefore upheld. However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend its particulars of claim within 15 days, considering that the plaintiff had previously been...

Citation
[2012] ZANCHC 33
Parties
Plaintiff: Molema Projects and Developers CC; Respondent: L F Bantjies Civil t/a Elcon Civil
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2012
Case Number
853/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 15 days.
Judges
Olivier
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Conditio Indebiti, Contractual Entitlement
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Conditio Indebiti Contractual Entitlement

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molema Projects and Developers CC

Plaintiff

L F Bantjies Civil t/a Elcon Civil

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing and thus excipiable.
  2. 2 Whether the written contract supports the alleged entitlement to 84% of the remuneration received by the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the amount claimed as overpayment is properly pleaded and reconcilable with the facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were vague, embarrassing, and contradictory. The written contract annexed to the particulars did not support the alleged entitlement to 84% of the remuneration received by the plaintiff, and the calculation of the overpayment was not reconcilable with the facts pleaded. The defects in the particulars of claim prejudiced the defendant, as it would be unable to plead meaningfully except by denying all allegations, which would itself be excipiable. The exception was therefore upheld. However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend its particulars of claim within 15 days, considering that the plaintiff had previously been...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The exception is upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiff is granted leave to amend its particulars of claim within 15 days hereof.