Nedbank Limited v Madonsela (2022/044542) [2024] ZAGPPHC 343 (8 April 2024)

Nedbank Limited v Madonsela (2022/044542) [2024] ZAGPPHC 343 (8 April 2024)

The Court found that the particulars of claim filed by the respondent do not comply with Rule 18(3) and 18(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court, as they lack clear, concise, and distinct averments of material facts necessary to enable the applicant to reply. The particulars are replete with irrelevant material, argument, and evidence, rendering them irregular. The reply by the respondent did not cure these defects. The Court held that the exception suspends further proceedings, making the summary judgment application irregular and premature. The requirements for summary judgment under Rule 32 were not met. In the interests of justice, the respondent was granted leave to amend the particulars...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 343
Parties
Applicant: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: John Madonsela
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 April 2024
Case Number
2022/044542
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Ruling on Exception and Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Exception upheld; particulars of claim set aside with leave to amend; summary judgment application dismissed; costs awarded to applicant on a party scale.
Judges
SST Kholong
Legal Topics
Exception to Pleading, Summary Judgment, Rule 18 Uniform Rules, Irregular Step, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Exception to Pleading Summary Judgment Rule 18 Uniform Rules Irregular Step Amendment of Pleadings

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Limited

Applicant

John Madonsela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Ruling on Exception and Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim comply with Rule 18(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the application for summary judgment constitutes an irregular step under Rule 30.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the particulars of claim filed by the respondent do not comply with Rule 18(3) and 18(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court, as they lack clear, concise, and distinct averments of material facts necessary to enable the applicant to reply. The particulars are replete with irrelevant material, argument, and evidence, rendering them irregular. The reply by the respondent did not cure these defects. The Court held that the exception suspends further proceedings, making the summary judgment application irregular and premature. The requirements for summary judgment under Rule 32 were not met. In the interests of justice, the respondent was granted leave to amend the particulars...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; particulars of claim set aside with leave to amend; summary judgment application dismissed; costs awarded to applicant on a party scale.

Orders

  • The first Defendant’s exception is upheld.
  • Plaintiff is ordered to remove the grounds of objection and amend his particulars of claim within ten days to comply with Rule 18 of the Uniform Rules.