St Clair Cooper NO and Others v Dipalemo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others; In re: St Clair Cooper NO and Others v Dipalemo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (3523/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 147 (29 August 2013)
The court found that the respondents' defence was based on the actual allocation of funds and not on the existence of any agreement regarding allocation. The references to the agreement in the plea served only as background and did not constitute a necessary link in the chain of the respondents' defence. Therefore, the plea was not irregular for failing to comply with Rule 18(6), as the respondents did not rely on the agreement to establish their defence. The application to strike out the plea was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants.
- Citation
- [2013] ZAFSHC 147
- Parties
- Applicant: Chavonne Badenhorst St Clair Cooper N.O.; Applicant: Luke Bernard Saffy N.O.; Applicant: Donovan Theodore Majiedt N.O.; Applicant: Dawid Pieter Badenhorst N.O.; Applicant: Barend Johannes Jacobus Bezuidenhout N.O.; Applicant: Ethne Mary van Wyk N.O.; Respondent: Dipalemo Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Diau Daniel Mosia N.O.; Respondent: Ruth Kelebogile Mosia N.O.; Respondent: Kenosi Ezra Mahoma N.O.; Respondent: Efcor-Dipalemo Property (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Maria Johanna Engelbrecht; Respondent: Andries Gustav Le Grange N.O.; Respondent: Cornelius Engelbrecht N.O.
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 29 August 2013
- Case Number
- 3523/2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Portions of Plea Under Rule 30(2)(c)
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- L J Lekale
- Legal Topics
- Pleading Irregularity, Rule 18 Compliance, Rule 30 Application, Allocation of Funds, Contractual Basis of Defence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Chavonne Badenhorst St Clair Cooper N.O.
Applicant
Luke Bernard Saffy N.O.
Applicant
Donovan Theodore Majiedt N.O.
Applicant
Dawid Pieter Badenhorst N.O.
Applicant
Barend Johannes Jacobus Bezuidenhout N.O.
Applicant
Ethne Mary van Wyk N.O.
Applicant
Dipalemo Investments (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Diau Daniel Mosia N.O.
Respondent
Ruth Kelebogile Mosia N.O.
Respondent
Kenosi Ezra Mahoma N.O.
Respondent
Efcor-Dipalemo Property (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Maria Johanna Engelbrecht
Respondent
Andries Gustav Le Grange N.O.
Respondent
Cornelius Engelbrecht N.O.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Portions of Plea Under Rule 30(2)(c)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents' plea relies on a contract requiring compliance with Rule 18(6).
- 2 Whether references to an agreement in the plea render it irregular and subject to being struck out under Rule 30.
- 3 Whether the respondents' defence is complete without reference to the alleged agreement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents' defence was based on the actual allocation of funds and not on the existence of any agreement regarding allocation. The references to the agreement in the plea served only as background and did not constitute a necessary link in the chain of the respondents' defence. Therefore, the plea was not irregular for failing to comply with Rule 18(6), as the respondents did not rely on the agreement to establish their defence. The application to strike out the plea was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment