Steenbergen and Others v Minister of Safety and Security (1071/2003_) [2005] ZAFSHC 26; ; (17 February 2005)

Steenbergen and Others v Minister of Safety and Security (1071/2003_) [2005] ZAFSHC 26; ; (17 February 2005)

The plaintiffs' declaration fails to set out the material facts necessary to support a claim for unlawful arrest. Instead, it contains only conclusions of law without the factual basis required by Rule 18(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court. This deficiency renders the pleading vague and embarrassing, substantially prejudicing the defendant's ability to formulate a defence. The exception is upheld, and the declaration is set aside, with leave granted to the plaintiffs to amend their declaration within 60 days.

Citation
[2005] ZAFSHC 26
Parties
Plaintiff: Hubrecht Willem Steenbergen; Plaintiff: Zacharias Johannes Cilliers; Plaintiff: Jacobus Johannes Albertus Hills; Plaintiff: Gabriel Johannes de Beer; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2005
Case Number
1071/2003
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Pre Trial
Outcome
Exception upheld; plaintiffs' declaration set aside with leave to amend within 60 days.
Judges
Rampai
Legal Topics
Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Unlawful Arrest, Malicious Arrest, Pleading Requirements, Defective Summons
Civil Procedure Delict Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Unlawful Arrest Malicious Arrest Pleading Requirements Defective Summons

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hubrecht Willem Steenbergen

Plaintiff

Zacharias Johannes Cilliers

Plaintiff

Jacobus Johannes Albertus Hills

Plaintiff

Gabriel Johannes de Beer

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' declaration contains sufficient material facts to support a claim for unlawful arrest.
  2. 2 Whether the declaration is vague and embarrassing, prejudicing the defendant's ability to plead.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs have complied with Rule 18(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court regarding clear and concise pleading.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' declaration fails to set out the material facts necessary to support a claim for unlawful arrest. Instead, it contains only conclusions of law without the factual basis required by Rule 18(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court. This deficiency renders the pleading vague and embarrassing, substantially prejudicing the defendant's ability to formulate a defence. The exception is upheld, and the declaration is set aside, with leave granted to the plaintiffs to amend their declaration within 60 days.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; plaintiffs' declaration set aside with leave to amend within 60 days.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld.
  • The plaintiffs' declaration is set aside.