Schmidtsdrifte Communal Property Association v Steenkamp (CA&R 85/08) [2009] ZANCHC 70 (20 November 2009)

Schmidtsdrifte Communal Property Association v Steenkamp (CA&R 85/08) [2009] ZANCHC 70 (20 November 2009)

The Court held that, although the summons and further particulars were poorly drafted, they could be interpreted as a claim based on agency, with the work to be performed set out in broad terms and reasonable remuneration implied. Thus, the first exception (failure to disclose a cause of action) was correctly dismissed. However, the summons was found to be vague and embarrassing, particularly because it was unclear how the Plaintiff could contract with himself, the scope and timing of the work, and the basis for remuneration. This vagueness prejudiced the Defendant's ability to plead, and the Magistrate erred in dismissing the second exception. The Court ordered that the Plaintiff be...

Citation
[2009] ZANCHC 70
Parties
Appellant: Schmidtsdrifte Communal Property Association; Respondent: Leonardo Steenkamp
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2009
Case Number
CA&R 85/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Exceptions in Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; Defendant's exception for vague and embarrassing pleading is upheld; Plaintiff granted leave to amend.
Judges
KGOMO, MAJIEDT
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Agency, Locatio Conductio Operis
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Agency Locatio Conductio Operis

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schmidtsdrifte Communal Property Association

Appellant

Leonardo Steenkamp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Exceptions in Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff's summons as amplified by further particulars discloses a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's summons is vague and embarrassing to the extent that it prejudices the Defendant's ability to plead.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, although the summons and further particulars were poorly drafted, they could be interpreted as a claim based on agency, with the work to be performed set out in broad terms and reasonable remuneration implied. Thus, the first exception (failure to disclose a cause of action) was correctly dismissed. However, the summons was found to be vague and embarrassing, particularly because it was unclear how the Plaintiff could contract with himself, the scope and timing of the work, and the basis for remuneration. This vagueness prejudiced the Defendant's ability to plead, and the Magistrate erred in dismissing the second exception. The Court ordered that the Plaintiff be...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; Defendant's exception for vague and embarrassing pleading is upheld; Plaintiff granted leave to amend.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The Magistrate's order is set aside and substituted with: 'The Defendant's exception in terms of Rule 17(2)(b) read with Rule 17(5)(c) is upheld with costs. The Plaintiff is granted leave to remove the cause of the complaint within 10 (ten) days from date of this judgment.'