About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPPHC 383
|
|
Captain Stirling Investments 51 (Pty) Ltd v Koskas Tuisnywerheid CC and Others (55705/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 383 (23 October 2009)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH
GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)
DATE:
2009-10-23
CASE
NUMBER: 55705/08
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
In
the matter between:
CAPTAIN
STIRLING INVESTMENTS 51 (PTY)
LTD Plaintiff
and
KOSKAS
TUISNYWERHEID
CC First
Defendant
JOHANNES
NICOLAAS JACOBUS
MOUTON Second
Defendant
AAFKE
MOUTON Third
Defendant
JUDGMENT
SOUTHWOOD
J
[1]
The plaintiff excepts to the defendants' plea and counterclaim on the
grounds that they are vague and embarrassing and/or do
not disclose a
defence or cause of action. The plaintiff gave notice to the
defendants in terms of the Rule 23(1) to remove the
causes of
complaint and the defendants failed to do so. On 29 April 2009 the
plaintiff delivered its notice of exception to the
defendants’
plea and counterclaim.
[2]
On 7 July 2009 the defendants delivered a notice of amendment of
their plea and counterclaim but after the plaintiff gave notice
of
its objection to the amendment sought the defendants did not proceed
with an application to amend. The defendants appear to
have abandoned
their intention to amend.
[3]
The defendants did not indicate that they intended to oppose the
exceptions or appear to oppose the exceptions.
[4]
In my view the plea and counterclaim are vague and embarrassing and
do not disclose a defence or cause of action and the exceptions
should be upheld on the grounds set out in paras 1.1-1.4; 2.1-2.3;
3.1-3.4; 4.1-4.6; 5.1-5.5; 7.1-7.6 and 8.1-8.4 of the notice
of
exception.
Order
[5]
I
The exceptions to the defendants' plea
and counterclaim are upheld and the plea and counterclaim are set
aside;
II
The defendants are given leave, if so
advised, to amend their plea and counterclaim in accordance with Rule
28 within 1 month of
the date of this order
III
The defendants are ordered, jointly and severally,
to pay the costs
of the exception
B.R.
SOUTHWOOD
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
CASE
NO: 55705/08
HEARD
ON: 14 October 2009
FOR
THE PLAINTIFF: ADV. M WELZ
INSTRUCTED
BY: Waks Silent & Geach Attorneys
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 23 October 2009