South Africa Case Law

Fernridge Office Park(Pty) Ltd v Honey and Another (2020/5184)

Fernridge Office Park(Pty) Ltd v Honey and Another (2020/5184) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1464 (18 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/5184

Judge

Nty Siwendu

The court held that exceptions are pleadings and, as such, are capable of amendment under Rule 28. Rule 28(10) allows amendments at any stage before judgment, and the reference to 'judgment' in this context means the judgment on the exception, not the main action. The delay in seeking the amendment was explained by both parties' conduct and financial constraints, and no irregularity was raised. The court found no prejudice to the plaintiff that could not be cured by costs or adjournment. The proposed amendments raise issues worthy of consideration, particularly regarding the interplay between…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Exceptions To Particulars Of Claim
• Personal Liability Of Directors
• Companies Act Interpretation
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleadings

Hoogeveld Boerderybelleggings( Pty) Ltd and Others v TWK Agriculture Holdings (Pty) Ltd (A28/2020 ; 3770/2019)

Hoogeveld Boerderybelleggings( Pty) Ltd and Others v TWK Agriculture Holdings (Pty) Ltd (A28/2020 ; 3770/2019) [2021] ZAMPMHC 38 (13 December 2021)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A28/2020

Judges

Langa, Vukeya, Mphahlele

The court adopted a contextual approach to the interpretation of section 164 of the Companies Act, holding that the appraisal remedy is available to shareholders in a company with a single class of shares. The court found no indication in the Act that the legislature intended to limit the remedy to companies with multiple classes of shares. The wording of section 164 and section 37(8) does not exclude companies with a single class of shares, and the purpose of the provision is to protect dissenting shareholders from amendments to the MOI that materially and adversely affect their rights or in…

Source excerpt

• Companies Act 2008
• Shareholder Appraisal Rights
• Exceptions To Pleadings
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleadings

Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v GM Graphix (Pty) Ltd (18241/2018)

Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v GM Graphix (Pty) Ltd (18241/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 73 (12 March 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

18241/2018

Judge

T J Machaba

The High Court dismissed an exception to amended particulars of claim, finding the pleadings sufficiently clear and the defendant not prejudiced.

• Exception Procedure
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleadings
• Duty Of Care
• Pure Economic Loss
• Aquilian Action
• Exception-procedure

Madlala v City of Johannesburg and Another (23236/2017)

Madlala v City of Johannesburg and Another (23236/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 80 (28 February 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

23236/2017

Judge

T J Machaba

The court held that the defendants' complaints regarding the plaintiff's particulars of claim do not go to the formulation or the heart of the claim, but rather to specific issues such as the nature of the harm, the duty of care, and the quantification of damages, which are matters of evidence and detail to be addressed during pre-trial procedures. The court found that the particulars of claim provide sufficient material facts for the defendants to understand the case they must meet and to plead thereto. The court emphasized that technicalities should not be used to defeat substantive claims…

Source excerpt

• Vague And Embarrassing Pleadings
• Duty Of Care
• Personal Injury
• Quantification Of Damages
• Rule 18 Uniform Rules
• Exception Procedure

Transnet Soc Ltd t/a Transnet Property v Defensor Electronic Security Systems (Pty) Limited and Another (6023/2015)

Transnet Soc Ltd t/a Transnet Property v Defensor Electronic Security Systems (Pty) Limited and Another (6023/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 117 (21 June 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

6023/2015

Judge

M H Rampai

The High Court refused summary judgment, finding the defendants disclosed a bona fide defence based on compromise, suretyship, and uncertainty in the claim.

• Summary Judgment
• Lease Agreement
• Compromise
• Suretyship
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleadings
• Summary-judgment

Makushu and Others v Minister of Safety and Security (662/2011)

Makushu and Others v Minister of Safety and Security (662/2011) [2016] ZALMPTHC 6 (1 February 2016)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

662/2011

Judge

M V Semenya

The court found that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim were drafted in a manner that failed to disclose a cause of action, as they contained evidence, legal conclusions, opinions, and factual findings instead of material facts. This approach is contrary to the requirements of Rule 18(4) and the principle established in Buchner v Johannesburg Coin Co. The particulars were also found to be vague and embarrassing, making it difficult for the defendant to plead and causing prejudice. The court held that the exception must be upheld and granted the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their parti…

Source excerpt

• Pleading Requirements
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleadings
• Cause Of Action
• Rule 18 4

Mokone v Investec Bank Limited (41469/2012)

Mokone v Investec Bank Limited (41469/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 143 (26 March 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

41469/2012

Judge

Tlhapi V.V

The High Court dismissed an exception to a plea, finding the complaint was really about a vague and embarrassing pleading and that Rule 23 notice had not been given.

• Exception Procedure
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleadings
• Malicious Institution Of Proceedings
• Exception-procedure
• Vague-and-embarrassing-pleadings
• Civil-procedure

WP Fresh Distributers (Pty) Ltd v Klaaste NO and Others (16473/12)

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

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16473/12

Judge

Schippers

The High Court held that rule 23 exceptions do not apply to motion proceedings, dismissed the respondents’ exception, and allowed answering affidavits to be filed.

• Exceptions In Motion Proceedings
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleadings
• Suretyship Liability
• Civil-procedure
• Motion-proceedings
• Exceptions

Lynn and Main Incorporated v Blumenthal (00007/07)

Lynn and Main Incorporated v Blumenthal (00007/07) [2008] ZAGPHC 490 (17 March 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

00007/07

Judge

Gildenhuys

The court held that, although the particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing, they were not fatally defective and could be cured by amendment. The defendant did not file an affidavit setting out a bona fide defence, instead relying solely on technical objections. The court found that the substance of the plaintiff's claim was clear: Nedbank obtained judgment against Secure Yourself CC, ceded the judgment to the plaintiff, and upon deregistration of Secure Yourself CC, the defendant became personally liable for the debt under section 26(5) of the Close Corporations Act. In the absence of…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Cession Of Debt
• Close Corporation Liability
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleadings