Trope and Others v South African Reserve Bank (641/91) [1993] ZASCA 54; 1993 (3) SA 264 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 278 (A) (31 March 1993)

Trope and Others v South African Reserve Bank (641/91) [1993] ZASCA 54; 1993 (3) SA 264 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 278 (A) (31 March 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the order of the court a quo upholding the exception was not appealable because it was not final in effect. The exception was based on vagueness and embarrassment, requiring the appellants to clarify their pleadings rather than striking at the legal validity of their cause of action. The appellants were granted leave to amend their particulars of claim, and the deficiencies identified could be cured by amendment. The court rejected the argument that the order deprived the appellants of a possible cause of action, emphasizing that the true nature of the exception related to the formulation of the pleadings. Accordingly, the appeal was not properly...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 54
Parties
Appellant: Lionel Norman Trope; Appellant: Zondel Brenner; Appellant: Aaron Brenner; Respondent: South African Reserve Bank
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 1993
Case Number
641/91
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Exception Upheld in the Court a Quo on Grounds of Vagueness and Embarrassment.
Outcome
Appeal struck off the roll with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Joubert, Kumleben, F H Grosskopf, Howie, Krieger
Legal Topics
Exception Vagueness and Embarrassment, Pleading Particularity, Leave to Amend, Appealability of Orders, Duty of Care, Multiple Causation
Civil Procedure Delict Exception Vagueness and Embarrassment Pleading Particularity Leave to Amend Appealability of Orders Duty of Care Multiple Causation

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lionel Norman Trope

Appellant

Zondel Brenner

Appellant

Aaron Brenner

Appellant

South African Reserve Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Exception Upheld in the Court a Quo on Grounds of Vagueness and Embarrassment.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the order upholding the exception on the ground of vagueness and embarrassment appealable?
  2. 2 Did the exception relate to the absence of a cause of action or merely to the formulation of the pleadings?
  3. 3 Were the appellants deprived of a possible cause of action by the order of the court a quo?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the order of the court a quo upholding the exception was not appealable because it was not final in effect. The exception was based on vagueness and embarrassment, requiring the appellants to clarify their pleadings rather than striking at the legal validity of their cause of action. The appellants were granted leave to amend their particulars of claim, and the deficiencies identified could be cured by amendment. The court rejected the argument that the order deprived the appellants of a possible cause of action, emphasizing that the true nature of the exception related to the formulation of the pleadings. Accordingly, the appeal was not properly...

Court Disposition

Appeal struck off the roll with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck off the roll.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondent, including the costs of two counsel.