Valostar 259 CC v Pienaar and Others (24197/2019)
Valostar 259 CC v Pienaar and Others (24197/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 532 (13 December 2019)
The court held that the plaintiff’s averment of ownership must be accepted as true for purposes of exception, and as such, the plaintiff has locus standi. Any contradiction between the particulars of claim and the attached agreement may be clarified in evidence and does not render the claim excipiable. The claim for an unregistered praedial servitude is sufficiently pleaded as the existence of the servitude is alleged as a fact, and further details may be proved in evidence. However, the alternative claim based on via necessitas is not properly pleaded, as it lacks necessary averments regardi…
Source excerpt
- Praedial Servitude
- Locus Standi
- Exception Procedure
- Via Necessitas