Nel v Tsai and Others (40185/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 83 (30 July 2010)

Nel v Tsai and Others (40185/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 83 (30 July 2010)

The court held that the 'Letter of Appointment' is not totally unambiguous and that questions of interpretation should not be settled at the exception stage. The court found that the particulars of claim are not so vague or embarrassing as to prevent the defendants from pleading, especially given the concessions made by the plaintiff. The exception was therefore dismissed, and costs were ordered to be costs in the cause, as both parties were partly successful.

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 83
Parties
Plaintiff: Petrus Jacobus Nel; Defendant: Steven Martin Tsai; Defendant: Irene Margaret Tsai; Defendant: M & T Development (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Sunrise Moreletapark Properties (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Wing Tai Development (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Erf 68 Erasmus Kloof Extension 3 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Erf 105 Erasmus Kloof Extension 3 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: JR 209 Investments (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Faerie Glen Waterpark (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Centurion Vision Development (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Erf 1836 Garsfontein Extension 8 CC; Defendant: Faerie Glen Extension 28 CC; Defendant: Erf 87 Erasmus Kloof Extension 3 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Moreleta Park Property 3 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: M & T Development - Property Marketing (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Steven Martin Tsai N.O.; Defendant: Irene Margaret Tsai N.O.; Defendant: James Barry Munnik Hertzog N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 July 2010
Case Number
40185/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception dismissed; costs to be costs in the cause.
Judges
Goodey
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Contract Interpretation, Vagueness in Pleadings, Employment Agreement
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Contract Interpretation Vagueness in Pleadings Employment Agreement

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petrus Jacobus Nel

Plaintiff

Steven Martin Tsai

Defendant

Irene Margaret Tsai

Defendant

M & T Development (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Sunrise Moreletapark Properties (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Wing Tai Development (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Erf 68 Erasmus Kloof Extension 3 (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Erf 105 Erasmus Kloof Extension 3 (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

JR 209 Investments (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Faerie Glen Waterpark (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Centurion Vision Development (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Erf 1836 Garsfontein Extension 8 CC

Defendant

Faerie Glen Extension 28 CC

Defendant

Erf 87 Erasmus Kloof Extension 3 (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Moreleta Park Property 3 (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

M & T Development - Property Marketing (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Steven Martin Tsai N.O.

Defendant

Irene Margaret Tsai N.O.

Defendant

James Barry Munnik Hertzog N.O.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing to the extent that the defendants cannot plead thereto.
  3. 3 Whether the 'Letter of Appointment' is susceptible to more than one interpretation and whether evidence of implied terms may be admitted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 'Letter of Appointment' is not totally unambiguous and that questions of interpretation should not be settled at the exception stage. The court found that the particulars of claim are not so vague or embarrassing as to prevent the defendants from pleading, especially given the concessions made by the plaintiff. The exception was therefore dismissed, and costs were ordered to be costs in the cause, as both parties were partly successful.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed; costs to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed.
  • Costs are costs in the cause.