Oak Dene Square Properties v Hope Rhomas Reid t/a Animal Kingdom (63/02/01) [2002] ZAGPHC 32 (27 September 2002)

Oak Dene Square Properties v Hope Rhomas Reid t/a Animal Kingdom (63/02/01) [2002] ZAGPHC 32 (27 September 2002)

The court found that the written lease agreement expressly excluded the implied common law term that the premises must be fit for the purpose for which they are let, as stated in clause 14. However, the defendant's pleadings were unclear as to whether the alleged breach related to the premises not being fit for the specific purpose or being entirely untenantable. This ambiguity rendered the plea and counterclaim vague and embarrassing, as the applicant could not ascertain the precise defence or counterclaim to meet. The exception was therefore upheld, not because no cause of action or defence was disclosed, but because the pleadings lacked sufficient clarity.

Citation
[2002] ZAGPHC 32
Parties
Applicant: Oak Dene Square Properties; Respondent: Hope Thomas Reid t/a Animal Kingdom
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 2002
Case Number
2663/02
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Plea and Counterclaim
Outcome
Exception upheld; defendant granted leave to amend plea and counterclaim; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Exception to Pleading, Implied Terms in Lease, Vagueness and Embarrassment, Non Variation Clause
Civil Procedure Land and Property Exception to Pleading Implied Terms in Lease Vagueness and Embarrassment Non Variation Clause

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

Parties

Oak Dene Square Properties

Applicant

Hope Thomas Reid t/a Animal Kingdom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Plea and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's plea and counterclaim disclose a valid defence or cause of action in light of the written lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings are vague and embarrassing due to uncertainty about the nature of the alleged breach.
  3. 3 Whether the express terms of the lease exclude the implied common law term that premises must be fit for the purpose for which they are let.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the written lease agreement expressly excluded the implied common law term that the premises must be fit for the purpose for which they are let, as stated in clause 14. However, the defendant's pleadings were unclear as to whether the alleged breach related to the premises not being fit for the specific purpose or being entirely untenantable. This ambiguity rendered the plea and counterclaim vague and embarrassing, as the applicant could not ascertain the precise defence or counterclaim to meet. The exception was therefore upheld, not because no cause of action or defence was disclosed, but because the pleadings lacked sufficient clarity.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; defendant granted leave to amend plea and counterclaim; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld.
  • The defendant is given leave to amend his plea and his counterclaim within 20 days of this order.