WP Fresh Distributers (Pty) Ltd v Klaaste NO and Others (16473/12) [2013] ZAWCHC 95 (23 April 2013)

WP Fresh Distributers (Pty) Ltd v Klaaste NO and Others (16473/12) [2013] ZAWCHC 95 (23 April 2013)

The court held that rule 23(1) does not apply to motion proceedings, as exceptions are not a recognised procedure in applications. Respondents must raise preliminary points in answering affidavits, not by way of exception. The applicant's founding papers disclose a clear cause of action for payment under the suretyship agreement, and the relief sought is neither vague nor embarrassing. The respondents' reliance on the principles governing 'judgment or order' for appealability is misplaced, as the order sought is for payment and not for an appealable judgment under section 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act. The respondents' exception is dismissed, but they are granted an opportunity to file...

Citation
[2013] ZAWCHC 95
Parties
Applicant: WP Fresh Distributers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Hendrik Jacobus Klaaste N.O.; Respondent: Carolina Epafras N.O.; Respondent: John Henry Jones N.O.; Respondent: Riaan Tieties N.O.; Respondent: Willem Van Zyl N.O.; Respondent: Abraham Adams N.O.; Respondent: Lorenzo Heyns N.O.; Respondent: Cornelia Van Zyl N.O.; Respondent: Johanna Cupido N.O.; Respondent: Edward Gerhardus Stevens N.O.
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 April 2013
Case Number
16473/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Exception to Notice of Motion in Motion Proceedings
Outcome
Respondents' exception dismissed with costs; respondents directed to file answering affidavits by 15 May 2013.
Judges
Schippers
Legal Topics
Exceptions in Motion Proceedings, Vague and Embarrassing Pleadings, Suretyship Liability
Civil Procedure Exceptions in Motion Proceedings Vague and Embarrassing Pleadings Suretyship Liability

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

Parties

WP Fresh Distributers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Hendrik Jacobus Klaaste N.O.

Respondent

Carolina Epafras N.O.

Respondent

John Henry Jones N.O.

Respondent

Riaan Tieties N.O.

Respondent

Willem Van Zyl N.O.

Respondent

Abraham Adams N.O.

Respondent

Lorenzo Heyns N.O.

Respondent

Cornelia Van Zyl N.O.

Respondent

Johanna Cupido N.O.

Respondent

Edward Gerhardus Stevens N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Exception to Notice of Motion in Motion Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rule 23(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court applies to motion proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' notice of exception is competent in application proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's notice of motion is vague and embarrassing or discloses no cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that rule 23(1) does not apply to motion proceedings, as exceptions are not a recognised procedure in applications. Respondents must raise preliminary points in answering affidavits, not by way of exception. The applicant's founding papers disclose a clear cause of action for payment under the suretyship agreement, and the relief sought is neither vague nor embarrassing. The respondents' reliance on the principles governing 'judgment or order' for appealability is misplaced, as the order sought is for payment and not for an appealable judgment under section 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act. The respondents' exception is dismissed, but they are granted an opportunity to file...

Court Disposition

Respondents' exception dismissed with costs; respondents directed to file answering affidavits by 15 May 2013.

Orders

  • The respondents' exception is dismissed with costs.
  • The respondents are directed to file their answering affidavits, if any, on or before Wednesday 15 May 2013.