PCS Global (Pty) Ltd v Moisel and Another (2022/11004) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1217 (22 September 2023)

PCS Global (Pty) Ltd v Moisel and Another (2022/11004) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1217 (22 September 2023)

The court held that prescription is a defence to be raised by special plea, not by exception. The defendants' exceptions based on prescription were not competent, as the plaintiff is not required to plead facts anticipating prescription in its particulars of claim. The court further found that the particulars of claim were sufficiently clear and concise, containing all necessary averments to sustain a cause of action. The defendants failed to demonstrate any vagueness or embarrassment or resulting prejudice. Accordingly, all exceptions were dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1217
Parties
Plaintiff: PCS Global (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Ekkehard Walter Moisel; Defendant: Birget Cronau
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2023
Case Number
2022/11004
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Judgment on Exception
Outcome
All exceptions are dismissed with costs on a party and party scale.
Judges
Holland-Muter
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Prescription Defence, Vague and Embarrassing, Pleading Requirements
Civil Procedure Exception Procedure Prescription Defence Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Requirements

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PCS Global (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Ekkehard Walter Moisel

Defendant

Birget Cronau

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Judgment on Exception

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' exceptions based on prescription are competent and sustainable.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing to the extent that they prejudice the defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim contain sufficient averments to sustain a cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that prescription is a defence to be raised by special plea, not by exception. The defendants' exceptions based on prescription were not competent, as the plaintiff is not required to plead facts anticipating prescription in its particulars of claim. The court further found that the particulars of claim were sufficiently clear and concise, containing all necessary averments to sustain a cause of action. The defendants failed to demonstrate any vagueness or embarrassment or resulting prejudice. Accordingly, all exceptions were dismissed.

Court Disposition

All exceptions are dismissed with costs on a party and party scale.

Orders

  • The exceptions are dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded against the defendants on a party and party scale.