Mtshwelo v Road Accident Fund (1040/2009) [2009] ZAECMHC 16 (22 September 2009)

Mtshwelo v Road Accident Fund (1040/2009) [2009] ZAECMHC 16 (22 September 2009)

The court held that while the defendant's plea could be criticized for its form and may be undesirable, it is not excipiable. Rule 22(2) allows a defendant to plead non-admission where it genuinely lacks knowledge of the facts alleged. The defendant's statements that it has no knowledge of the plaintiff's allegations are reasonable in the circumstances, as many of the facts are peculiarly within the plaintiff's knowledge. The authorities cited by the plaintiff do not support the contention that the plea is excipiable. The court emphasized that although the defendant should not hide behind technicalities to avoid its obligations, the plea as drafted does not warrant the upholding of the...

Citation
[2009] ZAECMHC 16
Parties
Plaintiff: Ntombifuthi Mtshwelo; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2009
Case Number
1040/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Exception to Plea Under Rule 23
Outcome
Exception dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
Dawood
Legal Topics
Exception to Plea, Rule 23 Uniform Rules, Non Admission, Pleading Requirements
Civil Procedure Exception to Plea Rule 23 Uniform Rules Non Admission Pleading Requirements

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntombifuthi Mtshwelo

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Exception to Plea Under Rule 23

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's plea is excipiable for lacking necessary averments to sustain a defence.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's non-admission of facts is permissible under Rule 22(2) of the Uniform Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's plea justifies the conclusions drawn therein.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the defendant's plea could be criticized for its form and may be undesirable, it is not excipiable. Rule 22(2) allows a defendant to plead non-admission where it genuinely lacks knowledge of the facts alleged. The defendant's statements that it has no knowledge of the plaintiff's allegations are reasonable in the circumstances, as many of the facts are peculiarly within the plaintiff's knowledge. The authorities cited by the plaintiff do not support the contention that the plea is excipiable. The court emphasized that although the defendant should not hide behind technicalities to avoid its obligations, the plea as drafted does not warrant the upholding of the...

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed.
  • Each party to pay its own costs.