Roelof Laufs (Pty) Ltd and Others v Absa Bank Limited (94261/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 715 (20 November 2017)

Roelof Laufs (Pty) Ltd and Others v Absa Bank Limited (94261/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 715 (20 November 2017)

The court held that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim were excipiable as they failed to plead the necessary facts and circumstances to establish a tacit contract or implied terms. The plaintiffs did not allege a fiduciary relationship or contractual duty to account, nor did they comply with Uniform Rule 18(6) regarding written agreements. The references to paragraphs in the particulars of claim were confusing and did not support the relief sought. The exception was upheld, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the exception.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 715
Parties
Plaintiff: Roelof Laufs (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Marnus Laufs Boerdery (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: R P Laufs; Plaintiff: M J Laufs; Plaintiff: W J Laufs; Plaintiff: W J Laufs N.O.; Plaintiff: L G Laufs N.O.; Defendant: Absa Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2017
Case Number
94261/16
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendant's costs.
Judges
A B Rossouw
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Tacit Contract, Implied Terms, Fiduciary Duty, Uniform Rule 18
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Pleading Requirements Tacit Contract Implied Terms Fiduciary Duty Uniform Rule 18

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roelof Laufs (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Marnus Laufs Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

R P Laufs

Plaintiff

M J Laufs

Plaintiff

W J Laufs

Plaintiff

W J Laufs N.O.

Plaintiff

L G Laufs N.O.

Plaintiff

Absa Bank Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim contain sufficient averments to sustain the relief sought in prayers 2 and 3.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have pleaded facts sufficient to establish a tacit contract or implied terms.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has a contractual or fiduciary duty to account or debate accounts with the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim were excipiable as they failed to plead the necessary facts and circumstances to establish a tacit contract or implied terms. The plaintiffs did not allege a fiduciary relationship or contractual duty to account, nor did they comply with Uniform Rule 18(6) regarding written agreements. The references to paragraphs in the particulars of claim were confusing and did not support the relief sought. The exception was upheld, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the exception.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendant's costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs are ordered, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the defendant’s costs of the exception, including the costs of today.