IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
CASE NUMBER: 11279/2024
In the matter between
JOHN CORNELIUS PRETORIUS PLAINTIFF
and
LORENZO LEONARD FIRST DEFENDANT
LORENZO BUILDERS (PTY) LTD SECOND DEFENDANT
SPL CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD THIRD DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing: 22 November 2024
Date of judgment: 25 November 2024
BHOOPCHAND AJ:
1. The Defendants raised an exception to the Plaintiff’s particulars. The plaintiff
formulated two claims based on the breach of a building contract, the first for
damages arising from repairing the defective work and the second from loss of
rental income caused by the delay in obtaining occupation of the medium-sized
2
home. The Defendant raised two exceptions. The First Defendant complained that
the particulars disclosed no cause of action regarding the claim for loss of rental
income. The Second and Third Defendants excepted to the particulars as they
contained no specific allegation against them. The Defendants sought orders to
dismiss the claims. They challenge the legal validity of the claims and not their
formulation. The Defendant must, therefore, show that upon every interpretation,
the pleading in question can reasonably bear, no cause of action is disclosed.
2. The Plaintiff’s particulars cite the parties and deal with the jurisdiction of this court
to hear the matter. The Plaintiff then alleges that the First Defendant concluded a
partially written and partially verbal building agreement in his personal capacity
and as the authorised representative of the Second and Third Defendants . The
Plaintiff referred to the contract and the building plan that constituted the
agreement. The contract attached to the particulars was entered into and
concluded by the Plaintiff and the First Defendant. The particulars at all material
instances refer to the Defendants collectively.
3. Plaintiff recited the contract's material terms, which included the undertaking that
the residential dwelling shall be completed within four and a half months. He then
alleged that the completion time was specified to enable him to lease the
property. This was not in the written contract, except that the Plaintiff alleged the
contract was partly verbal. The Plaintiff recorded the contract price and the
consequences of a breach of the contract. The Plaintiff documented that the
parties contemplated the Plai ntiff suffering damages if there were structural
defects to the dwelling as well as the loss of rental income if the dwelling was not
completed timeously. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants’ work was flawed
and listed twenty-three defects. Plaintiff alleged that had the Defendants
performed properly and professionally, Plaintiff would not have suffered the
damages set out in its two claims.
4. The first claim was premised upon the costs of repairing the defects to the
dwelling. The Plaintiff estimated the cost at R685 170. The second claim was
3
based upon the Plaintiff's inability to lease the dwelling from 1 April 2024 , when
the Plaintiff expected to take occupation. The Plaintiff formulates this part of the
claim as: “the reasonable damages the Plaintiff suffered is R1900 per day from 1
April 2024 to such date the residential dwelling is completed , and the Plaintiff is
provided with occupation of the property”.
5. The First Defendant excepted to claim for loss of rental income because it lacked
specific averments, did not deal with causation and foreseeability, and had
insufficient detail. The Second and Third Defendants excepted to the claim for its
lack of specific allegations, for misjoinder, no factual or legal basis, and the
absence of a cause of action.
THE FIRST CLAIM
6. The First Defendant contended that the particulars failed to allege that the R1900
per day claimed as loss of rental was within the parties' contemplation at the time
of contracting. The cornerstone of a valid claim for consequential damages is
foreseeability. In Dharumpal Transport (Pty) Ltd v Dharumpal, 1956 (1) SA 700 (A),
the Court emphasised the importance of foreseeability in claims for
consequential damages.
7. The First Defendant alleged that the particulars did not provide a sufficient causal
link between the alleged breach and the loss of rental. The Plaintiff did not
specifically allege that the Defendants were informed that delays would result in
a loss of R1900 per day. The Court in Telematrix (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Standards
Authority SA 2006(1) SA 461 (SCA) cautioned against an overly technical approach
to pleadings. Still, it emphasised the need for sufficient detail to establish a valid
cause of action. The particulars fell short of this standard.
8. The First Defendant asserted that the particulars lacked the necessary detail to
support a claim for consequential damages such as lost rental income. The claim
4
does not specify how the daily rate was determined, nor does it provide any basis
for asserting this rate was foreseeable by the Defendants at the time of
contracting.
9. Plaintiff rebutted the allegation and cited the paragraphs of the particulars alleging
that the parties contemplated that Defendant’s failure to deliver the dwelling
timeously would result in a loss of rental income. It was alleged that the Plaintiff
could not lease the dwelling for profit at a market -related rental amount.
Therefore, the reasonable foreseeability of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff
and that it was within the contemplation of the parties was clearly pleaded.
10. Plaintiff refuted that it was required to plead that the parties agreed or were aware
that the quantum of his damages would amount to R1900 per day. The plaintiff
contended that damages are generally assessed at the date of the breach and not
when a contract is concluded. The plaintiff cited the case of Mostert NO v Old
Mutual Life Insurance Co (SA) Ltd 2001 (4) SA 159 (SCA) at paragraph 78 in support
of its contention. The plaintiff asserted that no rule in law requires parties to agree
or foresee at the time a contract is concluded the exact extent of the damages a
party may suffer if the other party breaches the contract. North & Son (Pty) Ltd v
Albertyn 1962 (2) 212 (A) , the case upon which the precedent for contractual
claims is based in Amler’s Precedents of Pleadings , concerned the loss of a
farmer’s summer crop as the mechanic repairing the tractor, failed to return it
timeously. The extent of the damages could only be determined at a later stage
and proved at the trial. When pleading, neither the trial Court nor the appeal Court
held that the Plaintiff was required to allege that the precise extent or manner of
calculation of the Plaintiff’s damages was within the contemplation of the parties
when they entered into their agreement. The exact quantification of a Plaintiff’s
claim is a matter of evidence as it co nstitutes facta probantia rather than facta
probanda.
11. Plaintiff argued that causation was alleged as he pleaded that he could not lease
the dwelling because the Defendants failed to complete it on time. The plaintiff
5
contended that the particulars contained the necessary allegations to sustain the
first claim, and the exception was without merit.
THE SECOND CLAIM
12. The Second and Third Defendants contended that the particulars did not contain
any specific allegations of fact or law against them and lacked averments that they
were involved in the negotiation, execution, or performance of the building
contract concluded between Plaintiff and First Defendant.
13. As Plaintiff did not allege that the Second and Third Defendants were parties to the
contract, there was no legal basis for joining them in the action. First Defendant’s
alleged involvement with the Second and Third Defendants was insufficient to
establish their liability for his contracts. They cited the case of Callender-Easby v
Grahamstown Municipality 1981 (2) SA 810 (E ) to emphasise the need for specific
allegations to justify the inclusion o f parties to litigation. The particulars failed to
meet this standard.
14. The Second and Third Defendants assert that as the particulars did not attribute
any conduct or omissions to them , it failed to establish any factual or legal
grounds upon which they could be held liable.
15. The Second and Third Defendants contended that in the absence of any specific
allegations or evidence of their involvement , the particulars did not disclose a
cause of action against them. Hence, the Plaintiff did not establish any basis upon
which the relief sought could be granted against them.
16. The Plaintiff contested the allegations of the Second and Third Defendants.
Plaintiff alleged that the contract was partially written and partially verbal, and the
Second and Third Defendants were represented by the First Defendant. Plaintiff
contended that it was the legal basis for joining the Second and Third
6
Respondents to the action. Plaintiff had pleaded the Second and Third
Defendants breach and their liability in all material aspects of the particulars.
17. The Defendants contended that pleadings must be clear , specific, and legally
sound to proceed to trial. Defendant’s Counsel raised the analogy of the Court
being like a skilled architect reviewing blueprints; it has the opportunity to identify
and rectify fundamental flaws in the case structure before construction begins.
The case illustrates the critical importance of proper pleading . The deficiency in
the particulars strikes at the heart of the claims' viability. The Defendants cited
the case of Trustees for the time being of the Children’s Resource Centre Trust and
Others v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd and Others (Legal Resources Centre as Amicus
Curiae) [2013] 1 AllSA 648 (SCA) to emphasise that the law demands not only that
a Plaintiff should have a cause of action but that he should make it appear clearly
in his pleadings. By upholding the exceptions raised , the Court can reinforce the
importance of clear, precise, and legally sound pleadings in the interests of justice
and for guidance to future litigants to ensure that well -constructed claims
proceed to trial.
18. In its written argument, the D efendants abandoned their prayer for the claims to
be dismissed . They contended that the exceptions should be upheld and the
Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the particulars within thirty days, failing
which the claim would lapse. The Plaintiff sought to place evidence on affidavit
where he would reveal correspondence addressed to the Defendants to withdraw
the exceptions failing which he would seek punitive costs against them. The Court
declined the invitation to prolong what is, in essence, an ill-founded exception.
EVALUATION
19. when adjudicating an exception based on the particulars disclosing no cause of
action, a Court will accept the allegations pleaded by the Plaintiff as true to assess
whether they disclose a cause of action . An excipient who alleges that t he
7
particulars disclose no cause of action must establish that upon any construction
of the particulars, no cause of action is disclosed. An excipient must make out a
compelling case before the exception can succeed. The unreported case of Merb
(Pty) Ltd v Matthews 2020/15069 provides a useful summary of some of the
general principles applicable to exceptions. The Plaintiff argued that from even a
cursory reading of the particulars, the Defendants' exceptions are ill-founded and
should be dismissed with costs.
20. The Defendants sought to dispose of the Plaintiff’s entire case by seeking the ir
dismissal. The Defendants failed to appreciate that if they were successful, the
Plaintiff’s summons would remain intact (Group Five Building Ltd v Government of
the Republic of South Africa (Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs) 1993(2) SA
593 (A) at 603 C-D). The proper prayer would be to uphold the exception and for
the unsuccessful party to apply for leave to amend its pleading. Defendants
seemed to realise this in their heads of argument but reverted once again in oral
argument to seeking the dismissal of Plaintiff’s second claim.
21. The Plaintiff’s particulars are inelegantly drafted and fail in many respects to
present a clear and distinct recital of the allegations necessary to support the two
claims. Examples include the failure to establish the link between the Second and
Third Defendants and the First Defendants in their citations. The headings are
misleading. The “Background” deals with the essential allegations relating to the
contract. The “Performance” deals with the factors causing the breach of the
contract. The second claim leaves the R1900 per day floating without reflecting
the total claim under this head of damages, even if it is an estimate. However, none
of these omissions detract from the test on exceptions raised for a failure to
disclose a cause of action. Not only are the Plaintiff’s claims evident on a cursory
reading of the particulars, but the latter contains all the material allegations
necessary to sustain both claims. This is evident from the survey of the particulars
and aspects of the Plaintiff’s argument reproduced in this judgment.
8
22. The exceptions raised by the De fendants have no mer it and stand to be dismissed.
An exception is not directed at producing and pleading to the perfect particulars
but determining whe ther the imperfect one supports a cause of action and
permits the opponen t to know the case it mus t mee t. Nor are the De fendants'
exceptions based on particulars that are vague and embarrassing or a failure to
comply with Ru le 18(10) of the Uniform Ru les of Court. In the premises, the order
that follows is appropriate.
ORDER
1. The Defendants' exceptions to Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with costs.
Ajay Bhoopchand
Acting Judge of the High Court
Western Cape Division
Cape Town
Judgment was handed dow n and delivered to the parties by e-mail on 25 November
2024
Plaintiff's Counsel: DR de Wet
Instructed by Barnard Inc, Pretoria
Defendants Counsel: P Tredoux
Instructed by Kruger & Blignaut, Bredasdorp