Westrand Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Mantsopa Local Municipality (4728/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 398 (19 October 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] ZAFSHC 398
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- P R Cronjé
- Case number
- 4728/2022
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- P R Cronjé
- Case number
- 4728/2022
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the Plaintiff had addressed the grounds for exception through its amendments, which incorporated the appointment letter, acceptance, and the written and signed SLA. Although there was an administrative oversight regarding the attachment of the SLA, the court accepted the Plaintiff's explanation and concluded that the particulars of claim were no longer excipiable. The court determined that it would be fair for each party to pay its own costs, given the circumstances and the administrative nature of the oversight.
Court disposition
Exception dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Orders
- The Exception is dismissed.
- Each party to pay its own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Westrand Consulting (Pty) Ltd
Plaintiff Counsel: Adv LA RouxMantsopa Local Municipality
Defendant Counsel: Adv N Snellenburg SC03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the particulars of claim were excipiable for failing to attach the Service Level Agreement (SLA).
- 02
Whether the particulars of claim sufficiently alleged the contract price or base-rate for services rendered.
- 03
Whether the amendments filed by the Plaintiff cured the defects raised in the exception.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Excipient argued that the Plaintiff's particulars of claim were defective because they did not attach the Service Level Agreement (SLA) and failed to specify the contract price or base-rate for the professional services. The Excipient maintained that these omissions rendered the claim vague and embarrassing, and that the Plaintiff's subsequent amendments did not properly address the defects, as the SLA was still not filed.
- Respondent
- The Plaintiff contended that the cause of complaint had been removed by properly effecting amendments to the particulars of claim, including the attachment of the SLA. The Plaintiff argued that any administrative oversight regarding the SLA's attachment was not intentional and should not be attributed to the attorneys. The Plaintiff maintained that the amendments addressed all grounds for exception.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 23 of the Uniform Rules of Court
An exception will be upheld only if the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing or lack averments necessary to sustain an action.
- 02
South African case law on pleadings and amendments
Amendments to pleadings may cure defects raised in an exception, provided the amendments address the grounds of complaint.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had addressed the grounds for exception through its amendments, which incorporated the appointment letter, acceptance, and the written and signed SLA. Although there was an administrative oversight regarding the attachment of the SLA, the court accepted the Plaintiff's explanation and concluded that the particulars of claim were no longer excipiable. The court determined that it would be fair for each party to pay its own costs, given the circumstances and the administrative nature of the oversight.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that administrative oversights in the filing of documents should not be attributed to the attorneys unless there is evidence of intentional misconduct.
- The court emphasized the importance of properly effecting amendments to pleadings to address exceptions and avoid unnecessary litigation.
Court disposition
Exception dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
- The Exception is dismissed.
- Each party to pay its own costs.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case no: 4728/2022
Reportable: YES/NO
Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO
In the matter between:
WESTRAND CONSULTING (PTY) LTD Plaintiff and
MANTSOPA
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Defendant
CORAM: P R CRONJé, AJ
HEARD ON: 28 JULY 2023
DELIVERED ON: 19 OCTOBER 2023
JUDGMENT BY: P R CRONJé, AJ
[1] The Excipient excepts against the particulars of claim of the Plaintiff in respect of the averment that it duly completed the tender and procurement process after it was appointed by the Excipient but that no Service Level Agreement (SLA) was appended. The Plaintiff attached a copy of the appointment letter to the particulars of claim but not the SLA.
[2] The Excipient also complains that the particulars of claim does not contain any allegations regarding what the contract price/value would be for rendering of the professional services or whether the services would be rendered at a base-rate and if so, what the base-rate would be.
[3] On 5 April 2023, the Plaintiff filed a notice of intention to amend, which was received by the Excipient’s attorneys on 5 April 2023. Therein the appointment letter, Plaintiff’s acceptance of the appointment and the written and signed SLA was incorporated and, on its version, appended. To address the second complaint, the Plaintiff referred to Clauses 2, 5 and 6 of the SLA and addressed the remaining complaints.
[4] The Plaintiff gave notice of a second intention to amend.
[5] In the Excipient’s Supplementary Heads of Argument it is stated that the Plaintiff purported to effect the amendment by delivering their amended pages of its particulars of claim on 24 April 2023. The Plaintiff however did not file the first SLA. The complaint was therefore not addressed.
[6] Mr Roux for the Plaintiff states that the cause of complaint has been removed and the amendments properly effected. According to him, the amended particulars of claim contained the SLA.
[7] From the submissions made before me by Mr Snellenburg SC and Mr Roux, I gathered that there appears to be an administrative oversight that occurred in respect of the Plaintiff’s attachment of the SLA and Mr Roux submitted that the Plaintiff do not wish to impugn any oversight to any of the attorneys.
[8] From what was submitted by both parties, it appears to me that the grounds for exception was properly addressed, albeit been complicated by the administrative oversight, and that it would be fair to both parties that each pay their own costs.
[9] I therefore make the following order:
9.1 The Exception is dismissed.
9.2 Each party to pay its own costs.
P R CRONJé, AJ
For the Excipient/Defendant: Adv N Snellenburg SC Mohobo Attorneys Inc. Bloemfontein For the Plaintiff: Adv LA Roux MM Kruger Attorneys Bloemfontein
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.