Pereira v Griffith (34755/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 727 (29 September 2022)

Pereira v Griffith (34755/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 727 (29 September 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim sufficiently pleaded the existence of a universal partnership, including the pooling of resources and compliance with obligations. The distinction between tacit and implied agreement was not material to the exception, and the facts pleaded were adequate to support the cause of action. The defendant's complaints regarding vagueness and failure to plead compliance were unfounded, as the particulars provided full details of the assets pooled and the conduct relied upon. The exception was therefore ill-advised and dismissed. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff as the successful party.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 727
Parties
Plaintiff: Rui Emanuel Gomes Pereira; Defendant: Diane Jill Griffith
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2022
Case Number
34755/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Defendant's exception to the plaintiff's particulars of claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Adams
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Universal Partnership, Tacit Agreement, Pleading Requirements
Civil Procedure Family and Children Exception to Particulars of Claim Universal Partnership Tacit Agreement 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rui Emanuel Gomes Pereira

Plaintiff

Diane Jill Griffith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action for a universal partnership.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing, causing prejudice to the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was required to plead compliance with his obligations under the alleged universal partnership agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim sufficiently pleaded the existence of a universal partnership, including the pooling of resources and compliance with obligations. The distinction between tacit and implied agreement was not material to the exception, and the facts pleaded were adequate to support the cause of action. The defendant's complaints regarding vagueness and failure to plead compliance were unfounded, as the particulars provided full details of the assets pooled and the conduct relied upon. The exception was therefore ill-advised and dismissed. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff as the successful party.

Court Disposition

Defendant's exception to the plaintiff's particulars of claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant’s exception to the plaintiff’s particulars of claim is dismissed with costs.