Peyper Austen Inc t/a Peyper Lessing Attorneys v Petru Bohta Properties (1277/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 253 (18 October 2021)

Peyper Austen Inc t/a Peyper Lessing Attorneys v Petru Bohta Properties (1277/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 253 (18 October 2021)

The court found that the plaintiff's declaration, read as a whole, sets out the cause of action with sufficient particularity. The declaration is based on a verbal agreement for legal services and outlines the collections mandate and the terms of payment, including payment upon termination of mandate. The defendant's alleged difficulty in pleading prescription does not render the declaration vague and embarrassing. The defendant is not prevented from raising prescription in a special plea, and the declaration provides enough material facts to make the cause of action intelligible. The exception was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 253
Parties
Plaintiff: Peyper Austen Inc t/a Peyper Lessing Attorneys; Defendant: Petru Bohta Properties
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2021
Case Number
1277/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Declaration
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
PAGE AJ
Legal Topics
Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Verbal Agreement, Prescription, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Verbal Agreement Prescription Exception Procedure

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peyper Austen Inc t/a Peyper Lessing Attorneys

Plaintiff

Petru Bohta Properties

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Declaration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's declaration is vague and embarrassing to the extent that the defendant is prejudiced in pleading.
  2. 2 Whether the cause of action is sufficiently particularised to enable the defendant to plead.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can raise the defence of prescription based on the declaration as pleaded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's declaration, read as a whole, sets out the cause of action with sufficient particularity. The declaration is based on a verbal agreement for legal services and outlines the collections mandate and the terms of payment, including payment upon termination of mandate. The defendant's alleged difficulty in pleading prescription does not render the declaration vague and embarrassing. The defendant is not prevented from raising prescription in a special plea, and the declaration provides enough material facts to make the cause of action intelligible. The exception was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs.