Royal Bafokeng Resources (Pty) Lyd and Others v Bambatha Engineering and Mining Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (2266/2020) [2022] ZANWHC 48 (2 June 2022)

Royal Bafokeng Resources (Pty) Lyd and Others v Bambatha Engineering and Mining Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (2266/2020) [2022] ZANWHC 48 (2 June 2022)

The court held that the plaintiffs' claim is based on delict, specifically economic loss resulting from alleged conspiracy and fraud by the defendants. Although the particulars of claim do not contain detailed allegations against the third and fourth defendants, they are cited as employee defendants who allegedly participated in the conspiracy to defraud the plaintiffs. The court found that the particulars of claim contain a concise statement of material facts sufficient to establish a cause of action, enabling the third and fourth defendants to plead thereto. The sufficiency of evidence against these defendants is a matter for trial, not for determination at the exception stage....

Citation
[2022] ZANWHC 48
Parties
Plaintiff: Royal Bafokeng Resources (Pty) Lyd; Plaintiff: Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd; Plaintiff: Royal Bafokeng Platinum Management Services (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Bafokeng Rasimone Management Services (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Bambatha Engineering and Mining Services (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Poogi Consultants (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Leka Monama; Defendant: Johannes Petrus Prinsloo; Defendant: Arthur Ramolefe Dikole; Defendant: Thoriso Jacqueline Modingoane; Defendant: Papi William Motete; Defendant: Oupa Jacob Komane; Defendant: Michael David Adonis; Defendant: Rudolph Christopher Phillis; Defendant: New Season Capital (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Mohloli Property Management & Services
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2022
Case Number
2266/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception dismissed; costs awarded against third and fourth defendants.
Judges
T Djaje
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Aquilian Liability, Conspiracy to Defraud, Bribery and Corruption, Money Laundering, Economic Loss
Civil Procedure Delict Commercial and Corporate Exception to Particulars of Claim Aquilian Liability Conspiracy to Defraud Bribery and Corruption Money Laundering +1 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Bafokeng Resources (Pty) Lyd

Plaintiff

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd

Plaintiff

Royal Bafokeng Platinum Management Services (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Bafokeng Rasimone Management Services (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Bambatha Engineering and Mining Services (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Poogi Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Leka Monama

Defendant

Johannes Petrus Prinsloo

Defendant

Arthur Ramolefe Dikole

Defendant

Thoriso Jacqueline Modingoane

Defendant

Papi William Motete

Defendant

Oupa Jacob Komane

Defendant

Michael David Adonis

Defendant

Rudolph Christopher Phillis

Defendant

New Season Capital (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Mohloli Property Management & Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the third and fourth defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the allegations in the particulars of claim are sufficient for the third and fourth defendants to plead thereto.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs have pleaded facts establishing delictual liability for economic loss arising from alleged conspiracy and fraud.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs' claim is based on delict, specifically economic loss resulting from alleged conspiracy and fraud by the defendants. Although the particulars of claim do not contain detailed allegations against the third and fourth defendants, they are cited as employee defendants who allegedly participated in the conspiracy to defraud the plaintiffs. The court found that the particulars of claim contain a concise statement of material facts sufficient to establish a cause of action, enabling the third and fourth defendants to plead thereto. The sufficiency of evidence against these defendants is a matter for trial, not for determination at the exception stage....

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed; costs awarded against third and fourth defendants.

Orders

  • The exception by the third and fourth Defendants is dismissed.
  • The third and fourth defendants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including costs of two counsel.