Pillay v Mercantile Bank (10310/2022)
Pillay v Mercantile Bank (10310/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1284 (13 December 2024)
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with Rule 18(6) by not attaching the contract upon which its locus standi is based. The particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing, as they do not provide sufficient detail regarding the acquisition of rights from Mercantile Bank, leaving uncertainty as to whether the respondent is entitled to enforce the loan agreement. This omission prejudices the applicant, who cannot properly plead to the claim. The preliminary issue regarding the timing of the notice to except was dismissed, as the applicant responded within the period allowed by…
Source excerpt
- Exception Procedure
- Locus Standi
- Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
- Rule 18 Compliance
- Contract Acquisition