Vericred Bureau (Pty) Ltd v Centlec (SOC) Limited In re Centlec (SOC) Limited v Vericred Bureau (Pty) Ltd (1965/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 196 (19 August 2022)

Vericred Bureau (Pty) Ltd v Centlec (SOC) Limited In re Centlec (SOC) Limited v Vericred Bureau (Pty) Ltd (1965/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 196 (19 August 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim set out the material facts necessary to sustain a cause of action for breach of contract. The defendant's objections were largely technical and did not demonstrate that the pleadings were vague and embarrassing to the extent that the defendant could not plead. The court held that the particulars of claim complied with Uniform Rule 18(4) and that any further disputes regarding interpretation or evidence are matters for trial. The defendant failed to discharge the onus required to sustain the exception, and the exception was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 196
Parties
Applicant: Vericred Bureau (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Centlec (SOC) Limited
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2022
Case Number
1965/2021
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim After Amendment
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mathebula
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Breach of Contract, Debt Collection Agreement
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Breach of Contract Debt Collection Agreement

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vericred Bureau (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Centlec (SOC) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim After Amendment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing and lack averments necessary to enable the defendant to plead.
  2. 2 Whether the exception raised by the defendant is sustainable in law after the plaintiff amended its particulars of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim set out the material facts necessary to sustain a cause of action for breach of contract. The defendant's objections were largely technical and did not demonstrate that the pleadings were vague and embarrassing to the extent that the defendant could not plead. The court held that the particulars of claim complied with Uniform Rule 18(4) and that any further disputes regarding interpretation or evidence are matters for trial. The defendant failed to discharge the onus required to sustain the exception, and the exception was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exceptions are dismissed with costs.