About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 674
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Erasmus and Others v Unigro Financial Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/104499) [2026] ZAGPJHC 674 (23 June 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NUMBER: 2024-104499
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
NOT REVISED.
In
the matter between:
CASPER
JAN HENDRIK ERASMUS
First
Applicant
CASPER
JAN HENDRIK ERASMUS N.O.
Second
Applicant
HENRIËTTE
JACOMINA ERASMUS N.O.
Third Applicant
and
UNIGRO
FINANCIAL SERVICES (PTY) LTD
First Respondent
THE
LAND AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
Second Respondent
BANK OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Heard:
23 June
2026
Delivered:
23 June
2026
JUDGMENT ON LEAVE TO
APPEAL
YACOOB,
J:
[1]
The applicants seek leave to appeal to the
Full Court of this Division the judgment and order in which I upheld
the exception raised
by the first respondent to the applicants’
particulars of claim.
[2]
The grounds on which the applicants seek
leave are, firstly, that another court may come to a different
conclusion regarding whether
the particulars disclose any cause of
action, and, secondly, that the court had no basis to make a punitive
costs order.
[3]
To deal with the second ground first, no
punitive costs order was made. An order was made granting costs on
scale C including two
counsel, one of whom is senior counsel. That is
a scale that takes into account the complexity of the matter and has
nothing to
do with punishment.
[4]
As far as the first ground is concerned,
the applicants point out that, since particulars of claim have to be
read as a whole and
the question whether the particulars disclose a
cause of action must be determined on any reasonable interpretation
of the particulars,
there is a likelihood that another court would
find that, indeed, there is an interpretation that discloses a cause
of action.
In particular, the applicants point out that para 32 of
the particulars on its own discloses a cause of action, as it alleges
that
no cession took place.
[5]
The first respondent submitted that if that
is the case, all that has to be done is amend the particulars to
delete para 33, which
was dealt with in detail in my original
judgment. However, this is a concession that para 32 does disclose a
cause of action (provided
that facts are proved).
[6]
That paras 32 and 33 do not particularly
make sense when read together is not relevant for the consideration
whether another court
may come to a different conclusion, since the
exception is not that the pleadings are vague and embarrassing, but
that no cause
of action is disclosed.
[7]
In those circumstances, I must grant leave
to appeal.
[8]
I make the following order:
(a)
Leave to appeal to the Full Court is
granted.
(b)
Costs of the application for leave are
costs in the appeal.
S. YACOOB
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
This judgment was handed
down electronically by circulation to the parties’
representatives by email, and by uploading on
the relevant electronic
platform. The date of this judgment is 23 June 2026.
APPEARANCES
For the
applicants:
F G Janse van Rensburg
Instructed
by:
Eugene Geyser Attorneys,
Viljoenskroon
For the
respondents: J
G Cilliers SC and H R Fourie SC
Instructed
by:
Strydom & Bredenkamp Attorneys