Hosking and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control (ECJ 2004/023)
Hosking and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control (ECJ 2004/023) [2004] ZAECHC 27 (2 September 2004)
The court found that the plaintiffs' replication was vague and embarrassing, failed to plead material facts, and relied on conclusions of law and fact without sufficient particularity. The replication introduced references to parties not before the court and attempted to widen the scope of the action beyond the particulars of claim. The constitutional challenge to the impugned sections of the Attorneys Act was inadequately pleaded, lacking factual basis for the alleged non-compliance with constitutional and parliamentary procedures. The replication also failed to properly plead the elements o…
Source excerpt
- Exception Procedure
- Rule 30 Irregular Step
- Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
- Attorneys Act Liability
- Constitutional Challenge
- Unjust Enrichment