Zoetendal Vineyards (Pty) Ltd v Aquest Colsen (Pty) Ltd (708/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 55 (1 October 2024)

Zoetendal Vineyards (Pty) Ltd v Aquest Colsen (Pty) Ltd (708/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 55 (1 October 2024)

The court held that while paragraphs 4 and 7 of the particulars of claim do not comply with rule 18(6), this non-compliance does not render them vague and embarrassing as the defendant is not seriously prejudiced and can understand the plaintiff's case. However, paragraph 5, read with paragraph 4.3, fails to specify the contractual milestones upon which payment was dependent. This omission goes beyond mere lack of particularity and prejudices the defendant's ability to plead, rendering the pleading vague and embarrassing. The court declared paragraph 5, read with 4.3, vague and embarrassing and afforded the plaintiff 15 days to amend the particulars of claim.

Citation
[2024] ZAECQBHC 55
Parties
Plaintiff: Zoetendal Vineyards (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Aquest Colsen (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2024
Case Number
708/2024
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Judgment on Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld in part; paragraph 5, read with 4.3, declared vague and embarrassing. Plaintiff granted leave to amend. No order as to costs.
Judges
NJ Mullins
Legal Topics
Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Rule 18 Compliance, Contractual Milestones, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Rule 18 Compliance Contractual Milestones Exception Procedure

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zoetendal Vineyards (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Aquest Colsen (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Judgment on Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing as envisaged by rule 23(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim comply with rule 18(6) regarding the pleading of contracts.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to specify contractual milestones prejudices the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while paragraphs 4 and 7 of the particulars of claim do not comply with rule 18(6), this non-compliance does not render them vague and embarrassing as the defendant is not seriously prejudiced and can understand the plaintiff's case. However, paragraph 5, read with paragraph 4.3, fails to specify the contractual milestones upon which payment was dependent. This omission goes beyond mere lack of particularity and prejudices the defendant's ability to plead, rendering the pleading vague and embarrassing. The court declared paragraph 5, read with 4.3, vague and embarrassing and afforded the plaintiff 15 days to amend the particulars of claim.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld in part; paragraph 5, read with 4.3, declared vague and embarrassing. Plaintiff granted leave to amend. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • Paragraph 5, read with sub-paragraph 4.3, of the particulars of claim is declared vague and embarrassing for failure to plead the details of the milestones upon which payment was dependent.
  • The plaintiff is afforded 15 days from the date of this order to amend the particulars of claim, failing which the defendant may apply for dismissal of the claim.