SA Fruit Promoters (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mercentile Bank Limited (3605/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 75 (4 April 2014)

SA Fruit Promoters (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mercentile Bank Limited (3605/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 75 (4 April 2014)

The court found that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded the existence of written contracts and attached the documents provided by the defendant, which the defendant itself considered to be the contracts. The plaintiffs were not required to attach all constituent documents or list every term, especially where only incomplete copies were available. The particulars of claim set out the material terms and breaches with sufficient clarity, and the calculation of damages was clear from the annexures. The parol evidence rule did not apply at this stage, as the documents were incomplete and secondary evidence was permissible. The exceptions raised by the defendant were found to be without...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 75
Parties
Plaintiff: SA Fruit Promoters (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: ST Francis Marine CC; Plaintiff: Beverly Ann King; Defendant: Mercantile Bank Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 2014
Case Number
3605/2013
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exceptions dismissed with costs.
Judges
F Kathree-Setiloane
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Pleading Requirements, Breach of Contract, Exchange Control Regulations, Secondary Evidence of Contract
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Exception Procedure Pleading Requirements Breach of Contract Exchange Control Regulations Secondary Evidence of Contract

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

SA Fruit Promoters (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

ST Francis Marine CC

Plaintiff

Beverly Ann King

Plaintiff

Mercantile Bank Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing or lack averments necessary to sustain an action.
  2. 2 Whether the attached documents constitute written contracts between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are required to plead all constituent parts and terms of the alleged contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded the existence of written contracts and attached the documents provided by the defendant, which the defendant itself considered to be the contracts. The plaintiffs were not required to attach all constituent documents or list every term, especially where only incomplete copies were available. The particulars of claim set out the material terms and breaches with sufficient clarity, and the calculation of damages was clear from the annexures. The parol evidence rule did not apply at this stage, as the documents were incomplete and secondary evidence was permissible. The exceptions raised by the defendant were found to be without...

Court Disposition

Exceptions dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exceptions are dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs, including the costs of two counsel.