Ngwenya v Allied Builders Home Centre (Pty) Ltd (2022/18959) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1330 (17 November 2023)

Ngwenya v Allied Builders Home Centre (Pty) Ltd (2022/18959) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1330 (17 November 2023)

The court found that the Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim failed to comply with Rule 18(4) and Rule 18(10) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The allegations regarding the incident and the quantification of damages were vague, lacking sufficient factual detail and particularity. The Plaintiff did not provide adequate information about the circumstances of the incident, the nature and extent of injuries, or the basis for the amounts claimed under various heads of damages. This lack of particularity prejudiced the Defendant, who could not meaningfully assess or respond to the claim. The court upheld the Defendant's exception and set aside the Particulars of Claim, granting the Plaintiff leave...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1330
Parties
Plaintiff: Maria Ntombizodwa Ngwenya; Defendant: Allied Builders Home Centre (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2023
Case Number
2022/18959
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim Under Rule 18(4) and Rule 30
Outcome
Defendant's exception upheld; Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim set aside with leave to amend.
Judges
Salmon AJ
Legal Topics
Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Personal Injury Claim, Rule 18 Uniform Rules, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Personal Injury Claim Rule 18 Uniform Rules Quantum of Damages

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Ntombizodwa Ngwenya

Plaintiff

Allied Builders Home Centre (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim Under Rule 18(4) and Rule 30

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Particulars of Claim are vague and embarrassing and/or fail to disclose a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's pleading complies with Rule 18(4) and Rule 18(10) of the Uniform Rules of Court regarding sufficient particularity and quantification of damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim failed to comply with Rule 18(4) and Rule 18(10) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The allegations regarding the incident and the quantification of damages were vague, lacking sufficient factual detail and particularity. The Plaintiff did not provide adequate information about the circumstances of the incident, the nature and extent of injuries, or the basis for the amounts claimed under various heads of damages. This lack of particularity prejudiced the Defendant, who could not meaningfully assess or respond to the claim. The court upheld the Defendant's exception and set aside the Particulars of Claim, granting the Plaintiff leave...

Court Disposition

Defendant's exception upheld; Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim set aside with leave to amend.

Orders

  • The Defendant's objection to paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim is upheld.
  • The Defendant's objection to paragraph 12 of the Particulars of Claim is upheld.