Caz Dry Attorneys and Another v Shamila Bricks (Pty) Ltd (2889/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 116 (3 December 2025)

### Case Note
**Caz Dry Attorneys and Barend Maritz Dry v Shamila Bricks (Pty) Ltd and Others**  
Case No.: 2889/2024  
Date: 03 December 2025  

### Reportability
This case is not formally reportable as it did not clarify new legal principles or establish significant precedents that would be of interest to other judges. The importance of the case lies primarily in the application of the rules regarding exceptions to pleadings, particularly how the court interprets allegations made in pleadings and the relationship between parties as described in contractual obligations. The outcome demonstrates how exceptions can be employed to challenge the sufficiency of particulars of claim, which could assist other practitioners facing similar procedural challenges.
### Cases Cited
1. Ocean Echo Properties 327 CC and Another v Old Mutual Life Insurance Company (South Africa) Ltd [2018] ZASCA 9; 2018 (3) SA 405 (SCA)
2. Trustees for the Time Being of the Children’s Resources Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd and Others [2012] ZASCA 182; 2013 (2) SA 213 (SCA); 2013 (3) BCLR 279 (SCA); [2013] 1 All SA 648 (SCA)
3. Kunver and Others v Mistry and Another (22/007836) [2024] ZAGPJHC 974 (3 September 2024)
4. Telematrix (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Standards Authority SA [2005] ZASCA 73; 2006 (1) SA 461 (SCA) 
5. Baliso v First Rand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank 2017 (1) SA 292 (CC) 
6. Francis v Sharp & Others 2004 (3) SA 230 (C) 
7. Nasionale Aartappel Kooperasie Bpk v Price Waterhouse Coopers Ing en Andere 2001 (2) SA 790 (T)
8. Minister of Agricultural and Land Affairs and Another v De Klerk and Other 2014 (1) SA 212 SCA
9. South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd v Louw [2017] ZALAC 63; [2018] 39 ILJ 189 LLC
10. Doyle v Fleet Motors PE (Pty) Ltd [1971] 3 All SA 55 (A)

### Legislation Cited
1. Companies Act 71 of 2008.
2. Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014.
### Rules of Court Cited
1. Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 18(4).

### HEADNOTE
### Summary
The case addressed a Notice of Exception brought by the First, Second, and Third Defendants against the Plaintiff’s Particulars of Claim. It revolves around whether the Claim disclosed a cause of action against the First and Second Defendants concerning a sale agreement and the attorney-client relationship. Ultimately, the court found that the Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a cause of action based on contractual obligations.
### Key Issues
The key legal issues included whether the Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim disclosed a valid cause of action against the First and Second Defendants, and the implications of the attorney-client relationship as it pertained to the sale agreement between the parties involved.
### Held
The court held that the Exception could not be upheld as the Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim did disclose a cause of action based on the interpretation of a tri-party agreement, leading to the dismissal of the exception.
### THE FACTS
The Plaintiff, Shamila Bricks (Pty) Ltd, brought an action against Caz Dry Attorneys and Barend Maritz Dry, with the Third Defendant, Shamila Trading Enterprises CC, also involved. The Plaintiff's claim was based on an agreement of sale concluded among the various parties. Following a Notice of Exception from the Defendants regarding the sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s claim, where they argued that it failed to disclose any valid cause of action, the court was tasked with determining whether the complaint had merit.

The Notice of Exception followed a prior attempt at challenging the same particulars, resulting in amendments by the Plaintiff, which were deemed insufficient. The parties agreed that no relief was sought from the Third Defendant, with the core argument focusing on the lack of a cause of action against the First and Second Defendants.

The central agreement referenced was a tri-party agreement, and the court noted that the interpretations of the contractual duties were contentious, specifically those within sections of the agreement dealing with accounting responsibilities.
### THE ISSUES
The court was required to address the following legal questions: 

1. Did the Plaintiff’s particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the First and Second Defendants?
2. What legal relationships existed between the parties as defined by the agreement, and did those create a duty for the Excipients to account to the Plaintiff?
### ANALYSIS
In its analysis, the court undertook a detailed review of the contractual obligations articulated in the tri-party sale agreement. It referred to the provisions of the agreement, interpreting them to determine whether they imposed a duty to account. The court articulated that the Plaintiff had posited a contractual right to receive a statement and debatement from the Defendants based on a provision in the sale agreement.

The court indicated that the key to assessing the exception lay in determining whether the particulars allowed for a cause of action to be constructed. The test for exceptions is that every reasonable reading of the pleading must not disclose any cause of action. Here, the court found that the Plaintiff had made sufficient allegations about the nature of the parties’ legal relations that rendered the Defendants' objection moot.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the particulars needed to provide clarity without descending into the nuances of factual disputes, which could only be resolved at trial. The court also highlighted the legal principle that a party successfully invoking an exception bears the onus of proving that the pleadings do not support a reasonable cause of action on any interpretation.
### REMEDY
The court ultimately dismissed the exception brought by the Defendants. It ruled that the Plaintiff’s particulars disclosed a cause of action at least under one interpretation of the allegations. Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff on a party-and-party scale, aligning with the general principle that the losing party bears the litigation costs.
### LEGAL PRINCIPLES
This judgment underscores several key legal principles:

1. An Exception can only be upheld if, on every reasonable interpretation of the pleadings, no cause of action exists.
2. The party alleging an exception carries the burden to demonstrate that the pleadings are insufficient to disclose a recognizable legal claim or cause of action.
3. The court evaluates only the contents of the Particulars of Claim as they stand, without reference to external facts, ensuring a streamlined process during pleading assessments.
4. The particulars must sufficiently delineate the issues to enable the opposing party to understand the basis of the claim and defend against it.
5. A party can plead multiple grounds for a cause of action, and if one is disclosed well, the claim may succeed regardless of the merits of others.