New Republic Bank Ltd v Rossiter (7332/2009) [2010] ZAKZDHC 75 (13 December 2010)

New Republic Bank Ltd v Rossiter (7332/2009) [2010] ZAKZDHC 75 (13 December 2010)

The court found that the clauses in the agreement regarding cession were not sufficiently clear to justify upholding the exception without evidence of surrounding circumstances. The allegations denying the existence of a cession were not vague and embarrassing, as the excipient could respond by denying the assertion and pleading the proper construction of the agreement. The excipient was not prejudiced by the manner in which the defendant pleaded these issues. However, the allegations relating to the contravention of section 38(1) of the Companies Act were found to be vague and embarrassing, as they did not clearly set out the basis for the alleged contravention. The court therefore...

Citation
[2010] ZAKZDHC 75
Parties
Plaintiff: New Republic Bank Limited; Defendant: Terence Rossiter
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2010
Case Number
7332/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Plea and Counterclaim
Outcome
Exceptions to the defendant's plea and counterclaim regarding cession dismissed; exceptions regarding section 38(1) of the Companies Act upheld.
Judges
K Swain
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Cession of Claims, Vagueness and Embarrassment, Contract Interpretation, Financial Assistance, Companies Act Section 38
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Cession of Claims Vagueness and Embarrassment Contract Interpretation Financial Assistance Companies Act Section 38

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Republic Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Terence Rossiter

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Plea and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's plea and counterclaim are vague and embarrassing regarding the existence of a cession of claims.
  2. 2 Whether the allegations relating to the contravention of section 38(1) of the Companies Act render the pleadings vague and embarrassing.
  3. 3 Whether the excipient is prejudiced by the manner in which the defendant pleaded the issues.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the clauses in the agreement regarding cession were not sufficiently clear to justify upholding the exception without evidence of surrounding circumstances. The allegations denying the existence of a cession were not vague and embarrassing, as the excipient could respond by denying the assertion and pleading the proper construction of the agreement. The excipient was not prejudiced by the manner in which the defendant pleaded these issues. However, the allegations relating to the contravention of section 38(1) of the Companies Act were found to be vague and embarrassing, as they did not clearly set out the basis for the alleged contravention. The court therefore...

Court Disposition

Exceptions to the defendant's plea and counterclaim regarding cession dismissed; exceptions regarding section 38(1) of the Companies Act upheld.

Orders

  • The first, second and third complaints of the excipient to the defendant's plea, and the first and second complaints to the defendant's counterclaim, are dismissed.
  • The fourth complaint of the excipient to the defendant's plea, and the third complaint to the defendant's counterclaim, are upheld.