Tswalu Kalahari Reserve (Pty) Limited v Cane Time Manufacturers CC (19533/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 61 (28 May 2019)

Tswalu Kalahari Reserve (Pty) Limited v Cane Time Manufacturers CC (19533/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 61 (28 May 2019)

The court found that the particulars of claim failed to plead the terms of the agreement between ALD and Cane Time, did not allege compliance with cancellation requirements, and relied on warranties rather than direct knowledge by the deponent. The applicant's case was excipiable and lacked the necessary averments to sustain a cause of action. The deponent's affidavit did not demonstrate sufficient personal knowledge of the material facts underlying the cause of action, as required by rule 32(2). The court held that summary judgment cannot be granted on an excipiable pleading and that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for summary judgment. Accordingly, the application was...

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 61
Parties
Applicant: Tswalu Kalahari Reserve (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Cane Time Manufacturers CC
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 2019
Case Number
19533/2018
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Opposed Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for summary judgment refused with costs on a punitive scale.
Judges
J I Cloete
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Cession of Claims, Excipiable Pleading, Contract Cancellation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Cession of Claims Excipiable Pleading Contract Cancellation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tswalu Kalahari Reserve (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Cane Time Manufacturers CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Opposed Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deponent to the supporting affidavit possessed sufficient personal knowledge for purposes of rule 32(2).
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a valid cause of action or are excipiable.
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment can be granted on an excipiable pleading.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the particulars of claim failed to plead the terms of the agreement between ALD and Cane Time, did not allege compliance with cancellation requirements, and relied on warranties rather than direct knowledge by the deponent. The applicant's case was excipiable and lacked the necessary averments to sustain a cause of action. The deponent's affidavit did not demonstrate sufficient personal knowledge of the material facts underlying the cause of action, as required by rule 32(2). The court held that summary judgment cannot be granted on an excipiable pleading and that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for summary judgment. Accordingly, the application was...

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment refused with costs on a punitive scale.

Orders

  • The application for summary judgment is refused with costs.
  • Such costs shall be paid on the scale as between attorney and client, including the costs of two counsel where employed, as well as any reserved costs orders.