1
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
'
{U D l
:"1 ~
i •
4. .
--~
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
{GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
13 April 2026
DATE SIGNATURE
In the matter between :
STEPHAN DWIGHT KLEMENTS
and
HEINRICH ADRIAAN DU PREEZ
JUDGMENT: EXCEPTION
Case No: 2024/ 4807
Excipient/Def ndant
Respondent/ aintiff
2
(The matter was heard in open court on 17 March 2026. Judgment was r
and a written judgment was uploaded onto the electronic file of the m er on
Caselines. The date of uploading of the judgment onto Caselines is dee ed to
be the date of the judgment).
BEFORE: HOLLAND-MUTER J:
[1] The Plaintiff (the Respondent in the exception) issued summons agai st the
Defendant (the Excipient in the application before court) fo r alleged defa ation
by the Defendant (Excipient) after they entered into an oral agreement i terms
of which the Respondent would have restored and refurbished the Exci ient's
Louis Doug Serrurier Ford GT 40 vehicle.
[2] Sometime after the agreement (supra) was entered into, the relati nship
between the parties soured and the Excipient voiced his feel ings towa ds the
Respondent regarding what he alleges to be the conduct f the
Respondent/Plaintiff . A long Whats-app communication followed in wh ch the
Excipient made no attempt to hide his feelings towards the Respondent a d that
the conduct of the Plaintiff was known to other persons as wel l.
[3] The Excipient served a notice in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Uniform ules of
Court calling on the Respondent to remove the cause of complaint I velled
against the particulars of claim . The Respondent claims damages in the
particu lars of claim from the excipient regarding what was alleged to be the
slanderous statements made by the Excipient towards the Respondent fo lowing
the disgruntlement of the Excipient regarding the work done on his Ford T.
[4] The Excipient's exception is based on two grounds namely (i) t at the
particulars of claim fail to allege any publication by the Excipient to third arties,
and (ii) that the particulars of claim fails to allege that the content of any uoted
3
passages are defamatory, or does so only in vague and embarrassing ter s that
the Excipient cannot plea to particulars of claim.
[5] The court must rule on the issue of whether the particulars of claim ar vague
and embarrassing alternatively lacks the necessary averments to cons tute a
cause of action. In layman's terms is there any merit in the Excipient's exc ption .
[6] Senyatsi J recently in Computer Users Council of South Africa Ho/din s CC v
City of Johannesburg and Others (3603/2013 {2023] ZAPG JHC-20 Jul 2023)
summarised the law regarding the vagueness and embarrassing excep ·on as
follows :
* "[29] An exception to a pleading on the ground that it is vag e and
embarrassing requires a two-fold consideration : (i) whether the pleadi lacks
particularity to the extent that it is vague, and (ii) whether the vagueness causes
embarrassment of such a nature that the excipient is prejudiced in that e/she
cannot plead properly pr properly prepare for trial. The excipien must
demonstrate that the pleading is ambiguous, meaningless, contradic ory or
capable of more than one meaning. To such extent causes embarrassmen to the
excipient'~
* "{30} An exception should be dealt with sensibly and not in an over-t hnica/
manner. Thus, it is only if the court can concluder that it is impossible to re ognize
the claim, irrespectively of the facts as they might emerge at the trial, at the
exception should be upheld'~
[7] To su c ceed with a n ex c e ption on the grounds o f v a g uen e s and
embarrassment . The excipient must demonstrate that it will serio sly be
prejudiced if the offending allegations are not expunged, the excipient carries
the onus to show that the vagueness amounts to an embarrassment faili g to do
so, the exception must fail.
4
[8] Maier-Frawley Jin Merb (Pty) Ltd and Others v Matthews and Other
(2020/15069} {2021] ZAGP JHC 693 {16 November 2021) summaris d the
applicable general principles that:
(i) the court will accept the a/legations pleaded by the plaintiff when as essing
whether the allegations are true;
(ii) The object of an exception is not to embarrass one's opponent or take
advantage of a technical flaL½ but to dispose of the case or a portion th
an expeditious manner;
(iii) The purpose of an exception is to raise a substantive question of la which
may have the effect of settling the dispute between the parties . Any ex ption
taken for another reason saddles the excipient with the obligation to mak out a
very clear case before if would succeed,
(iv) An excipient who alleges that the summons does not disclose a c use of
action must establish that upon any construction of the particulars of cl im, no
cause of action is disclosed;
(v) An over-technical approach should be avoided because it destr s the
usefulness of exception procedure, which is to weed-out cases witho legal
merit;
(vi) Pleadings must be read as a whole and an exception cannot be tak n to a
paragraph alone that is not self-contained; and
(vii) Minor blemishes and unradical embarrassments caused by a plead g can
and should be cured by further particulars'~
5
[9] The Excipient's exception is based on two grounds:
(i) First Ground: The particulars of claim fail to allege any publication y the
Defendant (Excipient) to a third party, and
(ii) Second Ground : The particulars of claim fail to allege the content f any
quoted passages is defamatory or does so only in vague and embarrassing erms.
[10] The first ground relating to the alleged non-publication has no merit There
is at least one person to whom the excipient voiced his opinion regard g the
Plaintiff. One Hennie van der Merwe, Vice-President of the Cobr Club,
contacted the Plaintiff on 3 September 2024 informing the plaintiff t
excipient informed van der Merwe that he was aware of at least one i
where the Plaintiff stole imported parts and that the excipient was a
several other disgruntled customers regarding the Plaintiff's workmansh
amounts to publication to a third party by the excipient .
[11] The second ground is almost hand in hand with the first ground.
Merwe informed the Plaintiff that the excipient informed van der Mer
t t e Plaintiff stole imported parts at the business. To allege someone sto e I not
vague but a rather straightforward accusation, and if untrue , will am unt to
defamatory conduct by the person who uttered the words to an outsi
face value this amounts calling the Plaintiff a thief and if proven, ill be
defamatory towards the Plaintiff. The excipient's publication and the c
thereof to Van der Merwe renders his exception nugatory and he can pie
particulars of claim. There can be no prejudice to the excipient as the par ·culars
of claim stands and he can plea thereto.
[12] The balance of the averments in the particular s of claim are back round
information which may become relevant during a t rial to either parti s. The
particulars of claim by the Plaintiff sets out and deals with the r levant
6
background facts to demonstrate the Plaintiff's justification with the clai . The
excipient is bound to the exception and reading the particulars of clai as a
whole, the backgrounds facts are not the subject of the exception. These
background facts may be relevant to the issue between the parties on tri I.
[13] Amler's Pleadings provide for a claim of defamation the fol wing:
"Elements of the cause of action: The elements of the cause are (a) a sta ement
concerning the Plaintiff and (b) which is wrongful (defamatory), (c) pub/is d and
(d) animo iniuriandi. Amler's Pleadings 10th Ed p 149.
[14] There is a clear statement made by the excipient towards Van der erwe.
The contents of the statement is prima fade defamatory depending n the
evidence at trial and the animus iniuriandi is the inference drawn fr , m the
statement . The trial court will decide whether the statement was made ith the
intention to defame the Plaintiff.
[15] The argument regarding vagueness by the Plaintiff at this stage re arding
the quantum of his claim may be addressed during trial and nothing p events
the Plaintiff to amend the quantum of his claim during the trial. Amen ments
may be made until before judgment and does not amount to a new c use of
action being introduced. See Pinkey v Northier and Another (2023/ 8082)
[2025] ZAGP JHC 18 March 2025. This complaint by the excipient is also ithout
merit. It was held in Pinky that "It is not incumbent on a plaintiff to
particulars of general damages. All that a plaintiff was required to do was to
furnish the defendant with the 'ground upon which the claim is bas d~ See
Simmonds v Whyte 1980 (1) SA 755 ( C) at p 758.
[16] The court is satisfied that the grounds raised in the exception has
and the following order is made:
ORDER:
merit
7
The exception is dismissed with costs, the costs to be on a party an party
scale, Counsel's fees on scale B.
Judge of the Pretoria Hig Court
13 Apr 12026
Matter was heard on 17 March 2026
Judgment delivered and uploaded onto Caselines on 13 April 2026.
REPRESENTATIVES:
Obo Excipient/ Defendant: Adv H Scholtz
Obo Respondent/Plaintiff: Adv BC Bester