Smada Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Tshwane University of Technology (11587/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 301 (16 March 2021)

Smada Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Tshwane University of Technology (11587/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 301 (16 March 2021)

The court held that the exception must be determined on the pleadings as they stand, accepting the truth of the allegations for the purpose of the exception. The special plea of prescription, as pleaded, sustains a defence and is not vague or embarrassing on the grounds raised. The first counterclaim is not excipiable merely because TUT may have been compensated by its insurer; insurance payments are generally res inter alios acta and do not preclude a claim for damages. The second counterclaim sufficiently alleges that the damage was caused by SMADA's employees acting in the course and scope of their employment, and identification of individual employees is not required at the pleading...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 301
Parties
Plaintiff: Smada Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Tshwane University of Technology
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2021
Case Number
11587/2019
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Plea and Counterclaims
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
H G A Snyman
Legal Topics
Exception to Pleadings, Vicarious Liability, Prescription, Quantification of Damages, Vagueness and Embarrassment, Lex Aquila
Civil Procedure Delict Exception to Pleadings Vicarious Liability Prescription Quantification of Damages Vagueness and Embarrassment Lex Aquila

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smada Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Tshwane University of Technology

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Plea and Counterclaims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the defendant's special plea of prescription disclose a valid defence or is it vague and embarrassing?
  2. 2 Does the first counterclaim for damages following theft disclose a cause of action given the insurer's payment?
  3. 3 Does the second counterclaim for damages to property disclose a cause of action where the employees are unidentified?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the exception must be determined on the pleadings as they stand, accepting the truth of the allegations for the purpose of the exception. The special plea of prescription, as pleaded, sustains a defence and is not vague or embarrassing on the grounds raised. The first counterclaim is not excipiable merely because TUT may have been compensated by its insurer; insurance payments are generally res inter alios acta and do not preclude a claim for damages. The second counterclaim sufficiently alleges that the damage was caused by SMADA's employees acting in the course and scope of their employment, and identification of individual employees is not required at the pleading...

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff / excipient’s exception dated 7 October 2019 is dismissed with costs.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, including costs consequent upon the engagement of senior counsel.