Pienaar v Gmeiner and Another (31068 /2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 57 (22 February 2013)

Pienaar v Gmeiner and Another (31068 /2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 57 (22 February 2013)

The court found that the plaintiffs were properly cited as trustees of the Orion Property Holding Trust and that the particulars of claim clearly described their capacities. There was no contradiction in the description of the landlord, as the lease agreement and pleadings consistently referred to the Orion Property Holding Trust. The complaint regarding vagueness and embarrassment was dismissed, as no notice was delivered to remove the cause of complaint as required by Rule 23(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Regarding locus standi, the court held that ownership need not be pleaded and that the trustees were authorised to act on behalf of the trust. The cause of action was based on the...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 57
Parties
Defendant: Julian Pienaar; Plaintiff: Franz Gmeiner N.O.; Plaintiff: Antoinette Christine Gmeiner N.O.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2013
Case Number
31068 /2012
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Both grounds of exception are dismissed with costs.
Judges
S Mia
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Locus Standi, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Lease Agreement
Civil Procedure Exception to Particulars of Claim Locus Standi Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Lease Agreement

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julian Pienaar

Defendant

Franz Gmeiner N.O.

Plaintiff

Antoinette Christine Gmeiner N.O.

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are properly cited as trustees and whether the description of the landlord is contradictory.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi and authority to bring the action.
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a cause of action or are vague and embarrassing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs were properly cited as trustees of the Orion Property Holding Trust and that the particulars of claim clearly described their capacities. There was no contradiction in the description of the landlord, as the lease agreement and pleadings consistently referred to the Orion Property Holding Trust. The complaint regarding vagueness and embarrassment was dismissed, as no notice was delivered to remove the cause of complaint as required by Rule 23(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Regarding locus standi, the court held that ownership need not be pleaded and that the trustees were authorised to act on behalf of the trust. The cause of action was based on the...

Court Disposition

Both grounds of exception are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Both grounds of exception are dismissed with costs of the exception.