Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v GM Graphix (Pty) Ltd (18241/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 73 (12 March 2019)

Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v GM Graphix (Pty) Ltd (18241/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 73 (12 March 2019)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim are not vague and embarrassing. The references to employees of Vodacom Shop Loftus do not form the basis of the plaintiff's claim, which is founded on the defendant's failure to stop debit orders from the SM account, resulting in pure economic loss. The contract and obligations were always between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the conduct of Loftus employees is immaterial. The defendant is able to plead to the particulars as they stand, and any alleged deficiency regarding the duty of care is a matter for defence, not exception. The defendant will not be prejudiced if the exception is dismissed, and the particulars of claim...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 73
Parties
Defendant: Vodacom (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: GM Graphix (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2019
Case Number
18241/2018
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim Under Rule 23(1)
Outcome
Exception dismissed. Costs awarded to the plaintiff on a party and party scale.
Judges
T J Machaba
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing Pleadings, Duty of Care, Pure Economic Loss, Aquilian Action
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleadings Duty of Care Pure Economic Loss Aquilian Action

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

Parties

Vodacom (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

GM Graphix (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim Under Rule 23(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing to the extent that the defendant cannot reasonably plead thereto.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim improperly relies on the conduct of employees of Vodacom Shop Loftus, raising vicarious liability.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has pleaded sufficient material facts to sustain a cause of action based on breach of duty of care and pure economic loss.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim are not vague and embarrassing. The references to employees of Vodacom Shop Loftus do not form the basis of the plaintiff's claim, which is founded on the defendant's failure to stop debit orders from the SM account, resulting in pure economic loss. The contract and obligations were always between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the conduct of Loftus employees is immaterial. The defendant is able to plead to the particulars as they stand, and any alleged deficiency regarding the duty of care is a matter for defence, not exception. The defendant will not be prejudiced if the exception is dismissed, and the particulars of claim...

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed. Costs awarded to the plaintiff on a party and party scale.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the exception on a party and party scale.