Windvogel v Minister of Police (3019/12) [2013] ZAECPEHC 32 (28 June 2013)

Windvogel v Minister of Police (3019/12) [2013] ZAECPEHC 32 (28 June 2013)

The court found that paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5 of the defendant's plea failed to comply with the requirements of rules 18(4) and 18(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The plea did not contain clear and concise statements of material facts, instead presenting legal conclusions and opinions without factual foundation. Specifically, the plea lacked particularity regarding the circumstances of the arrest, the factual basis for the alleged offence, and the justification for the arrest under the cited statutory provisions. As a result, the exceptions to these paragraphs were upheld.

Citation
[2013] ZAECPEHC 32
Parties
Plaintiff: Francois Edward Windvogel; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2013
Case Number
3019/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Plea
Outcome
Exceptions to paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5 of the defendant's plea upheld with costs; defendant granted leave to amend within ten days.
Judges
C Plasket
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Exceptions, Vague and Embarrassing, Material Facts, Rule 18
Civil Procedure Pleading Requirements Exceptions Vague and Embarrassing Material Facts Rule 18

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francois Edward Windvogel

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5 of the defendant's plea are vague and embarrassing or lack necessary averments to sustain a defence.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's plea complies with rules 18(4) and 18(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5 of the defendant's plea failed to comply with the requirements of rules 18(4) and 18(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The plea did not contain clear and concise statements of material facts, instead presenting legal conclusions and opinions without factual foundation. Specifically, the plea lacked particularity regarding the circumstances of the arrest, the factual basis for the alleged offence, and the justification for the arrest under the cited statutory provisions. As a result, the exceptions to these paragraphs were upheld.

Court Disposition

Exceptions to paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5 of the defendant's plea upheld with costs; defendant granted leave to amend within ten days.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s exceptions to paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5 of the defendant’s plea are upheld with costs.
  • The defendant is granted leave to amend paragraph 4 of his plea within ten days of the date of this judgment.