Samuels v Vuka Marketing (Pty) Ltd and Others (23237/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 412 (10 December 2013)

Samuels v Vuka Marketing (Pty) Ltd and Others (23237/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 412 (10 December 2013)

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim against the state defendants were excipiable because they failed to identify the source, nature, and content of the alleged statutory or regulatory duty with sufficient particularity. The plaintiff did not plead facts from which the conclusion could be drawn that any particular statute or regulatory provision applied, nor did he specify the breach of any such provision. The allegations were vague and did not enable the defendants to respond meaningfully. The court found that, in cases alleging breach of statutory duty or regulatory authority, it is incumbent on the pleader to identify the relevant statutory source and plead the...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 412
Parties
Plaintiff: Hendrik Johannes Samuels; Defendant: Vuka Marketing (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Doctor Mnisi; Defendant: Al K Maartens; Defendant: Director-General of the National Department of Labour; Defendant: Department of Labour, Nelspruit Labour Centre; Defendant: Director-General of the National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism; Defendant: Director-General: Trade and Industry of the National Department of Trade and Industry; Defendant: Head: Sport, Recreation, Arts and Culture of the Provincial Department of Culture, Sport and Recreation, Mpumalanga
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2013
Case Number
23237/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 15 days.
Judges
Murphy
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Statutory Duty of Care, Negligence, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Delict Pleading Requirements Statutory Duty of Care Negligence Exception Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Johannes Samuels

Plaintiff

Vuka Marketing (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Doctor Mnisi

Defendant

Al K Maartens

Defendant

Director-General of the National Department of Labour

Defendant

Department of Labour, Nelspruit Labour Centre

Defendant

Director-General of the National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Defendant

Director-General: Trade and Industry of the National Department of Trade and Industry

Defendant

Head: Sport, Recreation, Arts and Culture of the Provincial Department of Culture, Sport and Recreation, Mpumalanga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the state defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to establish a breach of statutory or regulatory duty by the state defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is required to identify the specific statutory provisions allegedly breached.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim against the state defendants were excipiable because they failed to identify the source, nature, and content of the alleged statutory or regulatory duty with sufficient particularity. The plaintiff did not plead facts from which the conclusion could be drawn that any particular statute or regulatory provision applied, nor did he specify the breach of any such provision. The allegations were vague and did not enable the defendants to respond meaningfully. The court found that, in cases alleging breach of statutory duty or regulatory authority, it is incumbent on the pleader to identify the relevant statutory source and plead the...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 15 days.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld with costs, including the costs of senior counsel.
  • The plaintiff is granted leave to amend his particulars of claim within 15 days of this order, failing which the excipients may apply to court for the claim against them to be dismissed.