Snyman v Van Tonder (16402/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 60 (24 May 2017)

Snyman v Van Tonder (16402/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 60 (24 May 2017)

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action for constitutional damages. The claim lacks the exceptional circumstances and public law element required for such a remedy. The pleaded facts, which allege harassment and violation of rights, do not support a claim for constitutional damages or a delictual claim for compensation. The appropriate remedies for the alleged conduct would be a prohibitory interdict or a delictual claim for damages, neither of which was properly pleaded. The exception was upheld, but the plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to amend the particulars of claim within 20 days, failing which the action would be deemed...

Citation
[2017] ZAWCHC 60
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Frederick Snyman; Defendant: Eben Johannes Van Tonder
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2017
Case Number
16402/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; plaintiff afforded opportunity to amend particulars of claim within 20 days, failing which action deemed dismissed with costs.
Judges
A.G. Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Constitutional Damages, Exception to Particulars of Claim, Remedies for Rights Infringement, Harassment and Interdict, Delictual Liability, Rule 28 Amendment
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Delict Constitutional Damages Exception to Particulars of Claim Remedies for Rights Infringement Harassment and Interdict Delictual Liability +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Frederick Snyman

Plaintiff

Eben Johannes Van Tonder

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action for constitutional damages.
  2. 2 Whether the claim is vague and embarrassing.
  3. 3 Whether constitutional damages are available in the absence of a public law element or exceptional circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action for constitutional damages. The claim lacks the exceptional circumstances and public law element required for such a remedy. The pleaded facts, which allege harassment and violation of rights, do not support a claim for constitutional damages or a delictual claim for compensation. The appropriate remedies for the alleged conduct would be a prohibitory interdict or a delictual claim for damages, neither of which was properly pleaded. The exception was upheld, but the plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to amend the particulars of claim within 20 days, failing which the action would be deemed...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; plaintiff afforded opportunity to amend particulars of claim within 20 days, failing which action deemed dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's exception to the plaintiff's particulars of claim is upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiff is afforded an opportunity to give notice in terms of rule 28 of the Uniform Rules within 20 days of the date of this order of his intention to amend his particulars of claim.