Qubeka v Anglogold Ashanti Limited (37336/12) [2014] ZAGPJHC 70 (4 April 2014)

Qubeka v Anglogold Ashanti Limited (37336/12) [2014] ZAGPJHC 70 (4 April 2014)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim, when read as a whole, are neither vague nor embarrassing and provide sufficient detail to enable the defendant to plead. The use of 'at all material times' and references to the period of employment are clear and unambiguous. Allegations regarding breach of statutory duty and failure to comply with regulations are adequately set out, and the identity of specific personnel is not material to the pleaded cause of action. The court held that constitutional values relied upon are consistent with the common law of delict and may inform the interpretation of wrongfulness, even for conduct prior to the Constitution's enactment. None of...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 70
Parties
Plaintiff: Biyana Benson Qubeka; Defendant: Anglogold Ashanti Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 2014
Case Number
37336/12
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception and Rule 30(1) Application to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
All exceptions and the rule 30 application are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Particularity in Pleadings, Employer Liability for Occupational Disease, Breach of Statutory Duty, Silicosis Claims
Civil Procedure Delict Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Particularity in Pleadings Employer Liability for Occupational Disease Breach of Statutory Duty Silicosis Claims

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Biyana Benson Qubeka

Plaintiff

Anglogold Ashanti Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception and Rule 30(1) Application to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing or lack sufficient particularity to enable the defendant to plead.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a cause of action in delict for damages arising from occupational disease.
  3. 3 Whether reliance on constitutional values for conduct prior to 1997 is permissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim, when read as a whole, are neither vague nor embarrassing and provide sufficient detail to enable the defendant to plead. The use of 'at all material times' and references to the period of employment are clear and unambiguous. Allegations regarding breach of statutory duty and failure to comply with regulations are adequately set out, and the identity of specific personnel is not material to the pleaded cause of action. The court held that constitutional values relied upon are consistent with the common law of delict and may inform the interpretation of wrongfulness, even for conduct prior to the Constitution's enactment. None of...

Court Disposition

All exceptions and the rule 30 application are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The exceptions and the rule 30 application are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.