Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Limited and Others v United Democratic Movement and Another (58969/2018) [2023] ZAGPPHC 688 (17 August 2023)

Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Limited and Others v United Democratic Movement and Another (58969/2018) [2023] ZAGPPHC 688 (17 August 2023)

The court found that the excipient failed to establish that the defendants' amended plea, considered as a whole and on any reasonable interpretation, lacked the averments necessary to sustain a defense. The incorporation of findings from the independent commission was permissible, and the amended plea contained sufficient particularity to enable the plaintiffs to replicate. The exception was therefore not competent, and the plaintiffs would not suffer prejudice if the exception was dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 688
Parties
Applicant: Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Harith General Partners (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Harith Fund Managers (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Wheatley, Warren Gregory; Applicant: Mahloele, Tshepo Daun; Applicant: Moleketi, Phillip Jabulani; Respondent: United Democratic Movement; Respondent: Holomisa, Bantubonke Harrington
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 August 2023
Case Number
58969/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Exception to Amended Plea Under Rule 23
Outcome
The exception is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Bokako
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Defamation, Pleading Requirements, Public Interest Defense
Civil Procedure Delict Exception Procedure Defamation Pleading Requirements Public Interest Defense

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Harith General Partners (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Harith Fund Managers (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Wheatley, Warren Gregory

Applicant

Mahloele, Tshepo Daun

Applicant

Moleketi, Phillip Jabulani

Applicant

United Democratic Movement

Respondent

Holomisa, Bantubonke Harrington

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Exception to Amended Plea Under Rule 23

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' amended plea is excipiable for being vague, embarrassing, or lacking averments necessary to sustain a defense.
  2. 2 Whether the incorporation of lengthy quotations from the PIC Report in the plea is permissible under the rules of pleading.
  3. 3 Whether the amendments to the plea prejudice the plaintiffs in preparing their case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the excipient failed to establish that the defendants' amended plea, considered as a whole and on any reasonable interpretation, lacked the averments necessary to sustain a defense. The incorporation of findings from the independent commission was permissible, and the amended plea contained sufficient particularity to enable the plaintiffs to replicate. The exception was therefore not competent, and the plaintiffs would not suffer prejudice if the exception was dismissed.

Court Disposition

The exception is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs.