Tolerable Trading (Pty) Ltd v Ribca Trading (Pty) Ltd (14666/2011) [2015] ZAGPPHC 164 (17 February 2015)

Tolerable Trading (Pty) Ltd v Ribca Trading (Pty) Ltd (14666/2011) [2015] ZAGPPHC 164 (17 February 2015)

The court found that the defendant's plea was vague and embarrassing. The denial of the existence of a written agreement, in light of the extensive amendments and initialling throughout Annexure '1', lacked sufficient particularity and created confusion regarding the true nature of the defendant's defence. The defendant's admission of payments corresponding exactly with the certified payment certificates, without providing an alternative basis for such payments, further contributed to the vagueness. The court held that the nature of the defendant's case only became clear through heads of argument, which is indicative of a prejudicial lack of particularity in the plea. The plea failed to...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 164
Parties
Plaintiff: Tolerable Trading (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Ribca Trading (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2015
Case Number
14666/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Plea
Outcome
Plaintiff's exception upheld; defendant's plea struck out with costs; defendant granted 15 days to amend plea.
Judges
N Davis
Legal Topics
Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Exception to Plea, Contractual Dispute, Written Agreement, Payment Certificates
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Exception to Plea Contractual Dispute Written Agreement Payment Certificates

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tolerable Trading (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Ribca Trading (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's plea is vague and embarrassing and thus excipiable.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's denial of the written agreement and payments lacks sufficient particularity.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's plea fails to disclose a proper defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's plea was vague and embarrassing. The denial of the existence of a written agreement, in light of the extensive amendments and initialling throughout Annexure '1', lacked sufficient particularity and created confusion regarding the true nature of the defendant's defence. The defendant's admission of payments corresponding exactly with the certified payment certificates, without providing an alternative basis for such payments, further contributed to the vagueness. The court held that the nature of the defendant's case only became clear through heads of argument, which is indicative of a prejudicial lack of particularity in the plea. The plea failed to...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's exception upheld; defendant's plea struck out with costs; defendant granted 15 days to amend plea.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's exception is upheld with costs.
  • The defendant's plea is struck out.