Vodacom (Pty) Limited v CEZ Investments (Pty) Limited; In Re CEZ Investments (Pty) Limited v Vodacom (Pty) Limited (38061/18) [2019] ZAGPJHC 528 (12 December 2019)

Vodacom (Pty) Limited v CEZ Investments (Pty) Limited; In Re CEZ Investments (Pty) Limited v Vodacom (Pty) Limited (38061/18) [2019] ZAGPJHC 528 (12 December 2019)

The court found that the first, second, and fourth grounds of exception lacked merit. Claim B was held to be delictual in nature, and the particulars of claim, read as a whole, disclosed a cause of action. The use of terms such as 'premises', 'property', and 'buildings' was consistent with the lease agreement definitions. The claim for loss of income was adequately pleaded. However, the third ground of exception was upheld, as the particulars of claim did not set out the damages in a manner that would enable the defendant to reasonably assess the quantum, as required by rule 18(10). The attached report was insufficiently detailed. The plaintiff was granted an opportunity to amend the...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 528
Parties
Applicant: Vodacom (Pty) Limited; Respondent: CEZ Investments (Pty) Limited; Plaintiff: CEZ Investments (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Vodacom (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2019
Case Number
38061/18
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Exception partially upheld; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim in respect of damages.
Judges
PL Carstensen
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Quantum of Damages, Breach of Duty of Care, Lease Agreement, Negligence
Civil Procedure Land and Property Delict Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Quantum of Damages Breach of Duty of Care Lease Agreement +1 more

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

Parties

Vodacom (Pty) Limited

Applicant

CEZ Investments (Pty) Limited

Respondent

CEZ Investments (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff

Vodacom (Pty) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing and fail to disclose a cause of action in respect of claim B.
  2. 2 Whether the damages claimed are set out with sufficient particularity to enable the defendant to reasonably assess the quantum as required by rule 18(10).
  3. 3 Whether the exception should be entertained in light of pending amendments to the particulars of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first, second, and fourth grounds of exception lacked merit. Claim B was held to be delictual in nature, and the particulars of claim, read as a whole, disclosed a cause of action. The use of terms such as 'premises', 'property', and 'buildings' was consistent with the lease agreement definitions. The claim for loss of income was adequately pleaded. However, the third ground of exception was upheld, as the particulars of claim did not set out the damages in a manner that would enable the defendant to reasonably assess the quantum, as required by rule 18(10). The attached report was insufficiently detailed. The plaintiff was granted an opportunity to amend the...

Court Disposition

Exception partially upheld; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim in respect of damages.

Orders

  • The first, second and fourth grounds of exception are dismissed.
  • The third exception is upheld; the particulars of claim in respect of the claim for R1 729 100.00, excluding VAT, being the cost of repairing damage to the property, are set aside in terms of rule 30(3).