Re'f)()rtltbie:
• Cireula,te to Jud9~ :
Cttcutme t9 Regj<;mal
Magt.strates:
Circulate to M~i::i&lratt;s:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
········· ·~ ves , -N◊ .
YES / NO .
YES I NO
YES / NO •
YES / NO •
Case No: 1319/2024
In the matter between:
PRYASA TRADE 1094 CC t/a C-PAC PUMPS
AND VALVES
and
SOL PLAAT JE MUNICIPALITY
TRUE BUILD SERVICE CC
Plaintiff
First Defendant
Second Defendant
Neutral citation: Pryasa Trade 1094 CC tla C-PAC Pumps & Valves
(Case No: 1319/2024)
Coram: Coetzee AJ
Date of Judgment: 27 March 2026
ORDER
Page2
[1] The plaintiff's exception to the first defendant's plea is upheld.
[2] The First defendant is granted leave to amend its plea within 10 (ten)
days of this order.
[3] In the event that the First defendant fails to amend its plea within the
prescribed period, the plaintiff may apply for further relief .
[4] The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the application on
Scale C.
JUDGMENT
[1] This matter concerns an exception raised by the plaintiff to the first
defendant 's plea on the basis that it is vague and embarrassing
and/or lacks averments necessary to sustain a defence .
[2] The plaintiff excepts to the first defendant's plea on two principal
grounds:
2.1 That the plea fails to disclose a defence recogn ised in law;
alternatively.
2.2 That the plea is vague and embarrassing to the extent that
the plaintiff is prejudiced in formulating a proper replication .
[3] It is trite that an exception is a legal objection to the opponent's
pleading and should be pleaded with precision 1 It is not sufficient to
plead , without sufficient clarity and particularity. The excipient must
satisfy the Court that:
1 Manyatsaba v South Africa11 Post Office Ltd (2008] 4 All SA 459 (T) para 4 and S.
Page 3
3.1 On every reasonable interpretation of the pleading, no cause
of action or defence is disclosed; or
3.2 The pleading is so vague and embarrassing that it is
excipiable.
In considering an exception:
3.4 The Court accepts the factual allegations in the impugned
pleading as true .
3.5 The excipient bears the onus to demonstrate that the
pleading is excipiable.
3.6 An exception should not be upheld unless the excipient
would be seriously prejudiced if the pleading stands.
A plea must contain a clear and concise statement of the material
facts upon which the party relies, with sufficient particularity to
enable the opposite party to reply thereto .
[4] The defendant's plea alleges that the amount ceded has been paid
and that the plaintiff did not comply with the provisions od section 3
(2) of Act 40 of 2002. In this regard, Mr Groenewald on behalf of the
first defendant raised a triable defence and that the exception
should, on this ground alone, be dismissed. I do not agree in that the
plaintiff may if necessary apply for condonation .
[5] However , the plea does not set out:
5.1 The factual basis underpinning the defence.
Page4
5.2 The necessary averments to sustain the defence in law.
5.3 Sufficient particularity to enable the plaintiff to meaningfully
respond.
[6] The defendant's plea lacks particularity regarding the date of
payment , but more so avers that payment was made to the second
defendant.
[7] Where a defendant relies on a specific defence , it is incumbent upon
it to plead the facts necessary to sustain that defence . The absence
of such facts renders the plea excipiab le. On any reasonable
interpretation , the plea does not disclose a complete defence in law.
[8] Alternatively , the excipient avers that the plea is vague and
embarrassing. The test is whether :
8.1 The vagueness strikes at the root of the cause of action or
defence; and
8.2 The excipient would be prejudiced if compelled to plead to it.
[9] In the present matter :
9.1 The plea lacks clarity as to the factual basis of the defence.
9.2 It is unclear what case the defendant seeks to advance.
9.3 The plaintiff is unable to meaningfully respond without
speculation.
Page 5
[1 0] This results in prejudice to the plaintiff , as it cannot properly plead
over and or reply .
[11] The prejudice to the plaint iff is self-evident. The absence of
particu larity prevents the plaintiff from knowing the case it must
meet, pleading a proper replication or prepare for trial.
[12] Such prejudice justifies the upholding of the exception.
[13] The defendant's plea is excip iable on both grounds advanced. It fails
to disclose a defence and is, in any event , vague and embarrassing .
In the result , the following order is made:
1. THE PLAINTIFF'S EXCEPTION TO THE FIRST DEFENDANT'S
PLEA IS UPHELD.
2. THE .FIRST DEFENDANT IS GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND ITS
PLEA WITHIN 10 (TEN) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
3. IN THE EVENT THAT THE FIRST DEFENDANT FAILS TO AMEND
ITS PLEA WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, THE PLAINTIFF
MAY APPLY FOR FURTHER RELIEF.
4. THE DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE
APPLICATION ON SCALE C.
C ETZEE AJ
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH A ICA
NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION ,
KIMBERLEY
For the Plamttff:
On Instruction. of:
For the First Oef-endant:
On instruction of:
ADV AG VAN TONDl!R
;Enge Ism.an Magabane inc.
Kimbertey
MR SJ GftOENEWAlDT
Towe:fl & Gro-enewaJ.dt Attorney&
K1mberfey
Page6