About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAKZPHC 57
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
KwaZulu-Natal Light Tackle Boat Angling Association v Transet SOC Limited (2025-141806) [2026] ZAKZPHC 57 (18 May 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
KWAZULU-NATAL
DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG
CASE NUMBER: 2025-141806
In
the matter between:
KWAZULU-NATAL
LIGHT TACKLE
BOAT
ANGLING ASSOCIATION
PLAINTIFF
Versus
TRANSET SOC
LIMITED
FIRST DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
P
C BEZUIDENHOUT J
:
[1]
Plaintiff instituted an action against Defendant claiming the amount
of R425 357.00 plus
interest at the prescribed rate from date of
summons to date of payment and costs of suit. The claim arises
from certain
structures which were constructed on the land of
Defendant which was let to Plaintiff for some period of over thirty
years and
which was not renewed.
[2]
Defendant filed an exception to the particulars of claim on the basis
that it lacked averments
to sustain a cause of action. The
grounds are:
1.
That it is an enrichment lien and that Plaintiff is therefore
entitled to compensation for
the construction of the buildings.
2.
That in the particulars of claim Plaintiff pleads that Defendant
estimated the market value
of the improvements to be R425 357.00
and therefore Defendant had been enriched in the amount of
R425 357.00 without
cause.
It
sets out in the exception that for unjustified enrichment Plaintiff
can only obtain compensation for the lessor of Plaintiff’s
impoverishment at Defendant’s enrichment. The true
enrichment or Defendant would be the difference between the market
value of the property with the improvements on it and the market
value of the property without the improvements. The valuation
report provided is for the market rental value of the property.
Plaintiff has not pleaded the legal basis of the enrichment
claim.
It failed to plead the market value of the improvements or market
value of the property before the improvement, the
market value of the
property because of the improvements and therefore disclosed no cause
of action.
[3]
The exception is opposed by Plaintiff.
[4]
It was submitted on behalf of Defendant that for the reasons as set
out in the exception that
Plaintiff has not shown a cause of action
and that the exception must therefore succeed. It was submitted
by Defendant that
in the case of Rhoode v De Kok and Another
2013 (3)
SA 123
SCA at paragraph 15 it was reiterated that the useful
improvements, the amount of compensation is limited to the amount by
which
the value of the property has been increased or the amount of
the expenses incurred whichever is less. I was also referred
to
the case in United Apostolic Faith Church v Boksburg Christian
Academy
2011 (6) SA 156
(GSJ) where it was held by the court that the
right of the property of the occupier is qualified to the extent that
the improvements
must on the facts be useful or necessary and
properly quantified.
[5]
It was submitted that Plaintiff’s claim was an enrichment claim
and that accordingly the
market value of the improvements is to be
determined by taking the value of the property without the
improvements and the value
of the property with the improvements and
the difference would then be the value. It was submitted that
Plaintiff failed
to quantify the enrichment and also the alleged
improvements. It was therefore submitted that the exception
should succeed
and that the claim should be dismissed with costs.
[6]
Rule 23(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court allows a party to except to
a pleading or to particulars
of claim as in this case if it does not
sustain an action. That is the basis upon which Defendant has
excepted to Plaintiff’s
particulars of claim.
[7]
An exception may only be taken when a defect in the pleadings appears
exfaci
the pleading since no facts may be adduced to show that
the pleading is excepiable. Therefore the facts alleged in the
pleading
must for the decision of the exception be taken as correct.
Marnie v Watson
1978 (4) SA 140
(C) at 144 in Mcelvey v Cowen N.O.
1980 (4) SA 525
(Z) at 526 it held:
“
It is a first principle in
dealing with matters of exception that, if evidence can be led which
can disclose a cause of action alleged
in the pleadings, that
particular pleading is not excepiable. A pleading is only
excepiable on the basis that no possible
evidence led on the pleading
can disclose a cause of action.”
[8]
It was submitted on behalf of Plaintiff that Plaintiff pleaded that
Defendant had been enriched
sine casae
and that the
requirements were:
1.
Defendant had been enriched through useful improvements made on its
land.
2.
The extent by which Defendant had been enriched by the improvements.
3.
The extent by which Plaintiff had been impoverished and
4.
The absence of a legal ground or
casae
to be enriched.
[9]
It was submitted that these requirements had been met by averments
that Plaintiff was in
bona fide
possession of the property,
that Defendant had been enriched by the improvements which have been
made and Plaintiff impoverished
and that there was no legal ground
for Defendant to be enriched by the improvements. It was
submitted that the case of Rhoode
v De Kok and United Apostolic Faith
Church v Boksburg Christian Academy which was referred to by
Defendant was not applicable in
this case as they were, firstly in
the case of Roode an application where evidence had to be set out in
the affidavit and secondly
a trial where evidence was led and these
conclusions were made. That is distinguishable from the present
case where Plaintiff
has gone by way of action and only had to plead
the necessary averments upon which it relies to prove its cause of
action.
[10]
It was submitted that the key element of Defendant's exception was
the assertion that the market value rental
of the property is not
market related value of the improvements. This however was
submitted is not a basis for an exception.
It was submitted
that the particulars of claim sustain a cause of action and that
evidence can be led in that regard by Defendant
in the action.
Therefore the particulars of claim is not excepiable.
[11]
As set out above the necessary averments to sustain the cause of
action is set out in the particulars
of claim and further that
Plaintiff sets out the amount which it contends was the amount by
which Defendant had benefited and by
which Plaintiff had been
impoverished. The necessary averments are contained in the
particulars of claim and the attack by
way of exception is against
the manner in which the value of the impoverishments has been
calculated.
[12]
This however is not a basis for an exception as Defendant can plead
thereto in detail, can contradict it
and set out the way in which it
may feel the quantification should be done and such evidence can also
be led at the trial.
However there is no basis for an exception
to the particulars of claim as it sets out all the necessary
requirements for the claim
which it instituted.
Order:
The
exception is accordingly dismissed with costs. Such costs to be
on Scale B.
P
C BEZUIDENHOUT J.
JUDGMENT
RESERVED:
7 MAY 2026
JUDGMENT HANDED
DOWN:
18 MAY 2026
COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF:
A L CHRISTISON
Instructed by:
Randles
Incorporated
Durban
Tel:
031 301 0726
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Ref: A
van Lingen/Amisha/06 A005 002
c/o:
Randles Inc. PMB Offices
Tel:
033 392 8000
COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT:
K SHAZI
Instructed by:
Venns Attorneys
Pietermaritzburg
Tel:
031 823 6102
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Ref:
H Govender/Amisha/4322