Smit v Sidepoint Trading In re Sidepoint Trading v Smit and Others (446/2017) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 73 (19 September 2022)

Smit v Sidepoint Trading In re Sidepoint Trading v Smit and Others (446/2017) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 73 (19 September 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim failed to comply with Rule 18(6) by not specifying whether the contract was written or oral, failing to annex the written agreement, and not pleading the nature and fulfilment of conditions precedent. Several grounds of exception were upheld, including vagueness and embarrassment, lack of clarity regarding referenced agreements, and insufficient pleading of impossibility of performance. The court held that the particulars of claim did not disclose a cause of action and that no conceivable amendment could cure the defects. The exception was upheld, the particulars of claim were struck out, and the action was dismissed. Condonation...

Citation
[2022] ZAMPMBHC 73
Parties
Plaintiff: The Sefiso Sekuya Embili Agricultural Cooperative; Defendant: Akwandze Agricultural Finance (Pty) Ltd
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2022
Case Number
15/2021
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Adjudication and Final Order
Outcome
Exception upheld; particulars of claim struck out; action dismissed; costs awarded against plaintiff.
Judges
Greyling-Coetzer
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Pleading Requirements, Rule 18 6, Specific Performance, Contractual Repudiation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Pleading Requirements Rule 18 6 Specific Performance Contractual Repudiation

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Sefiso Sekuya Embili Agricultural Cooperative

Plaintiff

Akwandze Agricultural Finance (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Adjudication and Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim comply with Rule 18(6) regarding pleading of contracts.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing and/or fail to disclose a cause of action.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance or reinstatement of the Job Fund Project, grant, and loan.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim failed to comply with Rule 18(6) by not specifying whether the contract was written or oral, failing to annex the written agreement, and not pleading the nature and fulfilment of conditions precedent. Several grounds of exception were upheld, including vagueness and embarrassment, lack of clarity regarding referenced agreements, and insufficient pleading of impossibility of performance. The court held that the particulars of claim did not disclose a cause of action and that no conceivable amendment could cure the defects. The exception was upheld, the particulars of claim were struck out, and the action was dismissed. Condonation...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; particulars of claim struck out; action dismissed; costs awarded against plaintiff.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is granted condonation for the late filing of its heads of argument.
  • The defendant's exception is upheld.