NTSU Building (Pty) Ltd v Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Human Settlements, Free State Province (4946/2013) [2023] ZAFSHC 179 (16 May 2023)

NTSU Building (Pty) Ltd v Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Human Settlements, Free State Province (4946/2013) [2023] ZAFSHC 179 (16 May 2023)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim failed to disclose a cause of action against the first defendant. The claim for unjustified enrichment was not sufficiently pleaded, as there were no specific facts substantiating the payments made, nor was it clear whether the first defendant had delivered building materials to the other defendants. The plaintiff did not attach the relevant agreements or the court order referenced, resulting in a lack of clarity and particularity. The court held that the requirements for an enrichment claim were not met, and the particulars of claim did not enable the first defendant to plead properly. Accordingly, the exception was upheld.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 179
Parties
Applicant: NTSU Building (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Human Settlements, Free State Province; Defendant: Citra Shine Trading 606 CC; Defendant: Sabele Building Construction CC; Defendant: Mahlahleleli Construction CC; Defendant: Classical Oriental Trading 500 CC; Defendant: Tshenolelo Business Enterprise CC; Defendant: Ntlolane Construction CC; Defendant: Dilemopumo Construction & Training CC
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 May 2023
Case Number
4946/2013
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim Under Rule 23(1)
Outcome
Exception upheld; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 30 days; plaintiff to pay costs of the exception.
Judges
M E Mahlangu
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Pleading Requirements, Unjustified Enrichment, Cause of Action, Rule 18 Uniform Rules
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Pleading Requirements Unjustified Enrichment Cause of Action Rule 18 Uniform Rules

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NTSU Building (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Human Settlements, Free State Province

Respondent

Citra Shine Trading 606 CC

Defendant

Sabele Building Construction CC

Defendant

Mahlahleleli Construction CC

Defendant

Classical Oriental Trading 500 CC

Defendant

Tshenolelo Business Enterprise CC

Defendant

Ntlolane Construction CC

Defendant

Dilemopumo Construction & Training CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim Under Rule 23(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the first defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the claim for unjustified enrichment is sufficiently pleaded and quantified.
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim enable the first defendant to plead properly.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim failed to disclose a cause of action against the first defendant. The claim for unjustified enrichment was not sufficiently pleaded, as there were no specific facts substantiating the payments made, nor was it clear whether the first defendant had delivered building materials to the other defendants. The plaintiff did not attach the relevant agreements or the court order referenced, resulting in a lack of clarity and particularity. The court held that the requirements for an enrichment claim were not met, and the particulars of claim did not enable the first defendant to plead properly. Accordingly, the exception was upheld.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 30 days; plaintiff to pay costs of the exception.

Orders

  • The exception of the first defendant is upheld.
  • The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the particulars of claim, if so advised, within 30 days of this order.