Setumi Force Security v Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development (11833/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 283 (14 August 2009)

Setumi Force Security v Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development (11833/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 283 (14 August 2009)

The court found that the defendant's exception was unfounded, as the plaintiff had not yet commenced rendering services and therefore could not have failed to comply with the remuneration condition at the relevant time. The particulars of claim contained sufficient averments to sustain a cause of action, including an allegation of compliance with all bid conditions. The defendant failed to demonstrate any factual basis for its assertion that the plaintiff's claim was excipiable. The exception was deemed frivolous and dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 283
Parties
Plaintiff: Setumi Force Security; Defendant: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 August 2009
Case Number
11833/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
A. P. Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Contractual Compliance, Remuneration Under Labour Relations Act
Civil Procedure Labour Law Exception to Particulars of Claim Contractual Compliance Remuneration Under Labour Relations Act

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Setumi Force Security

Plaintiff

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim lack the necessary averment to sustain a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff complied with the contractual condition regarding remuneration of employees as prescribed by the relevant Government Gazette.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's exception is supported by the facts alleged in the particulars of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's exception was unfounded, as the plaintiff had not yet commenced rendering services and therefore could not have failed to comply with the remuneration condition at the relevant time. The particulars of claim contained sufficient averments to sustain a cause of action, including an allegation of compliance with all bid conditions. The defendant failed to demonstrate any factual basis for its assertion that the plaintiff's claim was excipiable. The exception was deemed frivolous and dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs.