Scheffer Supplier CC v Alorin International (Pty) Ltd and Another (71836/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 559 (3 August 2018)

Scheffer Supplier CC v Alorin International (Pty) Ltd and Another (71836/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 559 (3 August 2018)

The court held that the defendants' counterclaim is vague and embarrassing because it merely cites statutory provisions of the National Credit Act without pleading any material facts that establish a causal nexus between the alleged violations and the agreement. The court found that the purpose of pleadings is to inform the opposing party and the court of the factual basis of the claim, not merely legal conclusions. The absence of specific allegations regarding which clauses of the agreement are unlawful renders the counterclaim excipiable. The court rejected the respondents' reliance on Fundtrust (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Van Deventer, clarifying that reference to statutory provisions...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 559
Parties
Applicant: Scheffer Supplier CC; Respondent: Alorin International (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Alan Pupillo
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2018
Case Number
71836/2016
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Counterclaim in Main Action
Outcome
Exception upheld; counterclaim struck out with leave to amend.
Judges
Poswa-Lerotholi
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, National Credit Act, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Counterclaim Striking Out
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Pleading Requirements National Credit Act Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Counterclaim Striking Out

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scheffer Supplier CC

Applicant

Alorin International (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Alan Pupillo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Counterclaim in Main Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counterclaim filed by the defendants is vague and embarrassing under Rule 18(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim contains sufficient particularity to enable the plaintiff to reply.
  3. 3 Whether mere reference to statutory provisions without pleading supporting facts is permissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants' counterclaim is vague and embarrassing because it merely cites statutory provisions of the National Credit Act without pleading any material facts that establish a causal nexus between the alleged violations and the agreement. The court found that the purpose of pleadings is to inform the opposing party and the court of the factual basis of the claim, not merely legal conclusions. The absence of specific allegations regarding which clauses of the agreement are unlawful renders the counterclaim excipiable. The court rejected the respondents' reliance on Fundtrust (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Van Deventer, clarifying that reference to statutory provisions...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; counterclaim struck out with leave to amend.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld.
  • The counterclaim is struck out.