Moreira v McLoughlin (A377/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 62 (15 May 2012)

Moreira v McLoughlin (A377/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 62 (15 May 2012)

The court held that the appellant's counterclaim did not disclose a cause of action because the alleged oral agreement for occupational rent was invalidated by the non-variation clause in the written agreement, which required any alteration or addition to be signed by both parties. The court found that the procedure adopted by the respondent in raising the exception in limine under Rule 29(4) was permissible, given that advance notice was provided to the appellant. The appellant's alternative claim for rectification was insufficient, as the pleadings did not aver the conclusion of a later verbal agreement necessary to support a claim for occupational rent. The court concluded that neither...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 62
Parties
Appellant: Amavel Mota Moreira; Respondent: Geoffrey Keith McLoughlin
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2012
Case Number
A377/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Magistrate's Court Finding on Counterclaim Exception
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
P.A. Meyer, A.M.L. Phatudi
Legal Topics
Exception to Pleadings, Non Variation Clause, Rectification of Contract, Occupational Rent, Contractual Interpretation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception to Pleadings Non Variation Clause Rectification of Contract Occupational Rent Contractual Interpretation

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

Parties

Amavel Mota Moreira

Appellant

Geoffrey Keith McLoughlin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Magistrate's Court Finding on Counterclaim Exception

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's counterclaim disclosed a cause of action in light of the non-variation clause in the written agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court was correct to entertain the respondent's exception in limine under Rule 29(4) rather than by formal exception under Rule 19.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's alternative claim for rectification of the written agreement was sufficient to support a claim for occupational rent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant's counterclaim did not disclose a cause of action because the alleged oral agreement for occupational rent was invalidated by the non-variation clause in the written agreement, which required any alteration or addition to be signed by both parties. The court found that the procedure adopted by the respondent in raising the exception in limine under Rule 29(4) was permissible, given that advance notice was provided to the appellant. The appellant's alternative claim for rectification was insufficient, as the pleadings did not aver the conclusion of a later verbal agreement necessary to support a claim for occupational rent. The court concluded that neither...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.