About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZALCCT 60
|
|
Villet v Bonakele and Another (C11/2022) [2026] ZALCCT 60 (8 April 2026)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
AT CAPE TOWN
CASE
NO: C211 /2022
(1)
Reportable: NO
(2)
Of interest to other Judges: NO
08
April 2026
In the matter between:
JOAN
VILLET
Applicant
AND
BONAKELE
BENNET JACOBS
1
ST
Respondent
THE MEC FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS
ARTS
& AGRICULTURE, NOTHERN CAPE PROVINCE
2
ND
Respondent
Heard
:
21 June 2023
JUDGMENT
DUBA AJ
Introduction
[1]
The Applicant filed a statement of claim on
basis of being harassed, victimized, unilateral changes in work
conditions, the equal
work equal pay principle and discriminated
against by the Respondent. The application is opposed by the
Respondent. Subsequently
interlocutory applications were filed by
both parties to be determined by the court.
[2]
On 23 March 2022 the Respondents raised an
exception to the statement of claim of the Applicant on basis that it
is vague and embarrassing.
[3]
In response the Applicant filed an
irregular step application, in terms of Court Rules, to the
Respondent’s exception on the
basis that it is erroneously
based on Rule 18 of the Uniform Rules instead of Rule 6 of the Labour
Court Rules.
The general
principles governing exceptions
[4]
The
general principles governing exception are summarized by Erasmus
[1]
:
(a)
In each case the court is obligated
first of all to consider whether the pleadings does lack
particularity to an extent amounting
to vagueness. Where a statement
is vague it is either meaningless of capable of more than one
meaning.
(b)
If there is vagueness in this sense, the
court is then obligated to undertake a quantitative analysis of such
embarrassment as the
excipient can show is caused to him or her by
the vagueness.
(c)
In each case an ad hoc ruling must be
made as to whether the embarrassment is so serious as to cause
prejudice to the excipient
if he or she is compelled to plead to the
pleading in the form to which he or she objects. A point may be of
the outmost importance
in one case, and the commission thereof may
give rise to vagueness and embarrassment, but the same point made in
another case be
only a minor detail.
(d)
The ultimate test as to whether or not
the exception should be upheld is whether the excipient is
prejudiced.
(e)
The onus is on the excipient to show
both vagueness amounting embarrassment and embarrassment amounting to
prejudice.
(f)
The excipient must make out his or her
case for embarrassment by reference to the pleadings alone
[5]
In
the matter of
Harmse
v City of Cape Town
[2]
the Court noted that the Rules of this Court “do not require an
elaborate exposition of all facts in their full and complex
details –
that is the role of evidence, whether oral or documentary”. And
what is more, the
pre-trial
conference provides an occasion “for the detail or texture of
the factual dispute to begin to take shape”.
[6]
Bearing that cautionary note in mind and
bearing in mind that the parties in this matter have not yet had a
pre-trial conference,
the court must decide if the Respondents are
prejudiced because of the vagueness in the statement of claim as it
stands.
The applications
[7]
The Respondent raised an exception titled:
Notice in terms of Rule 11 (Exception – vague and
embarrassing), assuming that
is in terms of the Labour Court Rules.
When considering the entire whole content of the application,
actually it refers to the
Uniform Rules of the High Court more so
Rule 18(4).
[8]
The Respondent main ground of exception is
that the statement of claim does not contain clear and concise
statements of the material
facts upon which the pleader relies, to
enable the Respondent to properly respond. It falls short of the
requirements of Rule 18(4)
and thus vague and embarrassing. Further
the Respondent mentioned that it is unable to plead without risking
prejudice as result
of insufficient particularity in the pleading.
[9]
It
has been argued by the Respondent that in citing the Rule 18(4) of
the Uniform Rules as opposed to Rule 6 of the Labour Court
Rules, is
merely a cosmetic error. The heart of the problem with the
Applicant’s papers, the substance, is that there is
not
sufficient particularity for the Respondents to properly respond
thereto
[3]
.
[10]
According
to the Respondents the wording of Rule 6(1)(ii) and (iii) of the
Labour Court Rules, though cosmetically different, in
terms of where
the words are placed, is fundamentally and substantially similar to
Rule 18(4) of the Uniform Rules
[4]
.
[11]
The
Respondent further maintained that Rule 11 of the Labour Court Rules
is of such a nature that it is flexible and permits the
invoking of
the Uniform Rules, in instances where the Rules of the Labour Court
are silent
[5]
.
[12]
It
is the submission of the Respondents that the Applicant statement of
claim is pleading and must sate sufficient particularity,
the claim
that the Respondent must answer and the Applicant’s papers fall
short of this standard as highlighted in the- exception
[6]
.
[13]
The
Respondent emphasized that the object of pleadings is to enable each
side to come to trial prepared to meet the case of the
other and not
be taken by surprise. Pleadings must therefore be lucid and logical
and in an intelligible form and the cause of
action or defence must
clearly appear from the factual allegations made. The particulars of
claim should be so phrased that the
defendant may reasonably and
fairly be required to plead thereto
[7]
.
[14]
Subsequent
to the Respondent exception, the Applicant filed an irregular step
application on the basis that Rule 6 stipulates clearly
what is
required of a statement of claim, the delivery of the Respondents’
notice in terms of Rule 11, is an irregular step
as envisaged in
Uniform Rule 30
[8]
.
[15]
It is common cause that the Labour Court
Rules and specifically Rule 6(1)(b)(ii), do contain requirements
substantially similar
to those of the Uniform Rule 18(4), in that
they both essentially require a clear and concise statement of
material facts, with
sufficient particularity to enable a Respondent
to reply thereto.
[16]
However,
the Labour Court Rule 6(1)(b)(ii) should not be viewed in isolation
and that it should be read with, the provisions of
Rule 6(1)(b)(iii),
which provides for a description of the legal issues that arise from
the facts set out in the statement of claim
[9]
.
[17]
The
Applicant argued that the Uniform Rules do not contain a requirement
similar to that in Labour Court Rule 6(1)(b)(iii). In fact,
in the
case pleadings as envisaged in the Uniform Rules, it is not
necessarily the legal conclusion in the pleadings which determines
the real issues between the parties but the facts relied upon
[10]
.
[18]
When considering the Respondent’s
grounds for exception refer only to the requirement of a clear and
concise statement of
material facts, with sufficient particularity to
enable a respondent to reply thereto, but lack the legal issues that
in terms
of the statement of facts arise from those factual
allegations (my emphasis).
[19]
It
is incorrect to view the factual allegations in isolation, and not in
the context of the legal issues that they pertain to, the
Applicant
maintains that she needed to state material facts and more
particularly facts that are legally relevant to the legal
ground or
conclusion relied upon by the Applicant
[11]
.
[20]
The
Applicant emphasize that it is precisely the requirement in the
Labour Court Rules that an applicant state what specific legal
ground
or provision is relied upon, and this distinction between Labour
Court Rules and the Uniform Rules, that the Respondent
either
overlooked or attempted to avoid by basing their exception on the
provisions of Uniform Rule 18(4), rather than on Labour
Court Rule
6(1)(b)
[12]
.
[21]
The
Court agrees with the Applicant that the Respondent has no right to
choose whether to rely on the Labour Court Rules or the
Uniform
Rules. It was held that
[13]
:
“
(the)
limited application of rule 11 is not the gateway to the wholesale
importation and application of the Uniform Rules, and thereby
the
creation of a parallel system of procedure in this court. In the
presence, for example, the thrust of the excipient in that
the
respondent has failed to comply with the provisions of uniform rule
18, which generally regulates pleadings in the high court.
Whether or
not the respondent’s statement of claim is excipiable is to be
determined by reference to rule 6 of the rules
of this court, not
rule 18 of the uniform rules. Rule 6 requires no more than that a
party referring a statement of claim record
in a concise manner the
relevant facts on which that party relies, and also in concise terms,
the legal issues that arise. In the
absence of any directive to the
contrary, this is all that is required, and the standard against
which any pleading is to be measured”.
and
“
Both
parties have conducted this litigation as if the rules of this court
did not exist. This court has its own rules board, and
the board has
issued rules which apply to this court and the Labour Appeal Court.
There is a good reason for this – one of
the primary purposes
of the LRA is to establish a system of dispute resolution that is
less formal, efficient, expeditious and
inexpensive. The rules are an
integral element in achieving this purpose”.
[22]
The
grounds of exception as addressed in the notice of exception do not
as much refer to the legal issues that arise from the impugned
factual averments in the statement of claim
[14]
.
[23]
The Applicant submit that it is the facts
that legally relevant to make out a case disclosing a cause of action
that would be material
and that therefore need to be stated with
sufficient particularity to make it possible to respond to the
statement of fact. It
is further been argued that particulars that
are not required to be pleaded in order to disclose a cause of action
and that can
be acquired in the form of further particulars or during
pretrial proceedings would not be material and need not be pleaded
for
a statement of fact to comply with the requirement of
particularity.
Evaluation
[24]
It is necessary for the Court to mention
that the dispute was instituted and argued under the former rules of
the Court, and it
is considered as such for the purpose of this
decision.
[25]
On consideration of applications, it is
trite that exception must relate to the whole of the cause of action
and not to a particular
paragraph(s) in the cause of action.
[26]
An exception on the basis that a statement
of claim is vague and embarrassing and does enable a respondent to
respond thereto, would
only be competent where the statement are so
vague that it is impossible to determine the nature of the claim and
the burden is
on an excipient to show that this is the case.
[27]
The
Constitutional Court in Pretorius & Another v Transport Pension
Fund & Others
[15]
made the
following points about exceptions:
- In deciding an
exception a court may accept all allegations of fact made in the
particulars of claim as true, and may not have
regard to any other
extraneous facts or documents;
- A court may upload an
exception only when the excipient has satisfied the court that the
cause of action or conclusion of law
in the pleading cannot be
supported on every interpretation of the facts; and
- It
is a useful procedure to weed out bad claims at an early stage, but
an overly technical approach must avoided
[16]
.
[30] The submission by
the Respondent that the citation of Rule 18(4) of the Uniform Rules
as opposed to Rule 6 of the Labour Court
Rules, is merely a cosmetic
error is unacceptable.
[28]
Further that Rule 11 of the Labour Court
Rules is of such nature that it is flexible and permits for the
invoking of the Uniform
Rules in instances where Rules of the Labour
Court are silent. This an indication that the Respondent is aware
when the Uniform
Rules are applicable and in this instance elected to
turn a blind eye the Labour Court Rules specifically Rule 6.
[29]
Whether
or not the statement of claim is excepiable is to be determined by
reference to Rule 6 of the Labour Court Rules not Rule
18 of the
Uniform Rules. It is the Court emphasis that the limited application
of Rule 11 is not a gateway to the wholesale importation
and
application of the Uniform Rules, and thereby the creation of a
parallel system of procedures in this court
[17]
.
[30]
It is the Court view, that the Respondent
reliance on a more formal Uniform Rule 18(4), rather than the less
formal provisions of
the provisions of Rule 6(1)(b)(ii) and(iii) of
the Labour Court Rules, and they have no right to choose whether to
rely on the
Labour Court Rules or the Uniform Rules.
[31]
For the reasons given I make the following
order:
Order:
1.
That the application for exception is
dismissed, and the irregular step is upheld.
2.
Costs to be determined in the main
application.
J Duba
Acting Judge of the
Labour Court
Appearances:
For the
Applicant:
Adv. JL Olivier
Instructed
by:
Engelsman Magabane
Attorneys
For the Respondents:
M Ramabulana from State Attorney – Kimberly
[1]
Fundamental Principles of Civil Procedure (LexisNexis 2 ed 2008) at
218, citing Buthelezi v Minister of Bantu Administration
1961 (3) SA
256 (N)
[2]
(2003)
6 BLLR 557 (LC)
[3]
Page
3 Respondent’s heads – par. 3.7
[4]
Page
4 Respondent’s heads – par 3.9
[5]
Page
4 Respondent’s heads – par. 3.14
[6]
Pages
17-21 Pleading bundle
[7]
Page
6 Respondent’s heads – par. 4.6
[8]
Page
25 Pleadings - par. 3
[9]
Page
3 Applicant’s heads – par. 2.6
[10]
Page
3 Applicant’s heads – par. 2.8
[11]
Page
4 Applicant’s heads – par. 2.10
[12]
Page
5 Applicant’s heads – par. 2.13
[13]
(2018)
39 ILJ 1779 (LC)
[14]
Page
8 Applicant’s heads – par. 4.2
[15]
(2018)
39 ILJ 1937 (CC)
[16]
Paragraph 15
[17]
Footnote
13 supra