1) The Plaintiff claims payment of a specified amount from the

Defendant as surety in terms of a deed of suretyship, but fails to

allege that the debtor, to whom the Defendant has bound himself
as surety, has failed / is not in a position to pay the debt.

Die Eiser eis betaling van ‘n gespesifiseerde bedrag van die

Verweerder as borg in terme van ‘n borgakte, maar beweer nie dat
die skuldenaar aan wie die Verweerder homself verbind het as
borg, nie sy skuld betaal het nie of nie in ‘n posisie is om sy skuld
te betaal nie.

2) The Plaintiff alleges that a contract was signed on 20 January 1892

instead of 20 January 1992.

Die Eiser beweer dat ‘n kontrak geteken is op 20 Januarie 1892

eerder as 20 January 1992.

3) The Plaintiff alleges that he suffered bodily injuries caused by the

Defendant in that the Defendant “like the known streetfighter that
he is” attacked him without provocation in a public place with a
hammer.

Die Eiser beweer dat hy liggaamlike beserings opgedoen het

veroorsaak deur die Verweerder in dat die Verweerder “soos die
bekende straatvegter wat hy is” hom aangeval het sonder
provokasie in ‘n publieke plek met ‘n hammer.

4) The Plaintiff sues for breach of contract but fails to allege where the
contract was concluded.

Die Eiser dagvaar vir kontrakbreuk maar versuim om te beweer

waar kontraksluiting plaasgevind het.
 PARTICULARS OF CLAIM / BESONDERHEDE VAN VORDERING

1. The Plaintiff is… / Die Eiser is…

2. The Defendant is… / Die Verweerder is…
3. On 1 June 2014 the Plaintiff and the Defendant enetered into an agreement in terms of
which the Defendant sold to the plaintiff a certain BMW motor vehicle for the sum of
R150 000 / Op 1 Junie 2014 het die Eiser en Verweerder ‘n kontrak gesluit in terme waarvan
die Verweerder aan die Eiser ‘n spesifieke BMW motorvoertuig verkoop het vir ‘n bedrag van
R150 000.
4. The Defendant failed to deliver the motor vehicle to the Plaintiff. / Die Verweerder het
versuim om die voertuig aan die Eiser te lewer.
5. The Plaintiff accordingly cancelled the agreement. / Die Eiser het gevolglik die ooreenkoms
gekanselleer.
6. By reason of the cancellation the Plaintiff has suffered damages in the sum of R10 000
being… / As gevolg van die kansellasie het die Eiser skade gely in die bedrag van R10 000
welke…
7. In the premises the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff in the sum of R10 000. / In die
omstandighede is die Verweerder aanspreeklik teenoor die Eiser vir die bedrag van R10 000.

WHEREFORE… / WESHALWE…

NOTICE OF EXCEPTION / KENNISGEWING VAN EKSEPSIE

BE PLEASED TO TAKE NOTICE THAT the Defendant hereby excepts to the Plaintiff’s Particulars of
Claim as lacking averments necessary to sustain a cause of action. / GELIEWE KENNIS TE NEEM
dat die Verweerder hiermee eksepieer teen die Eiser se Besonderhede van Vordering aangesien dit
nie voldoende beweringe bevat om ‘n eisoorsaak te openbaar nie:

The grounds of the exception are as follows: / Die gronde vir die eksepsie is as volg:

1. In paragraph 5 of the Plaintiff’s particulars of claim, the Plaintiff alleges that it has cancelled
the agreement. / In paragraaf 5 van die Eiser se besonderhede van vordering beweer die
Eiser dat hy die ooreenkoms gekanselleer het.

2. The only basis on which the Plaintiff alleges to be entitled to cancel the agreement is set out
in paragraph 4 of the Plaintiff’s Particulars of Claim, namely the Defendant’s alleged failure to
deliver the motor vehicle to the Plainitff. / Die enigste basis waarop die Eiser beweer om
geregtig te wees om die ooreenkoms te kanselleer is uiteengesit in paragraaf 4 van die Eiser
se Besonderhede van Vordering, naamlik die Verweerder se beweerde versuim om die
motorvoertuig aan die Eiser te lewer.

3. In law such failure does not, on the averments made by the Plaintiff, entitle the plaintiff to
cancel the agreement. / In terme van die reg is die eiser nie geregtig om, op gronde van die
Eiser se beweringe, die ooreenkoms te kanselleer nie.

WHEREFORE the Defendant prays that: / WESHALWE smeek die Verweerder dat:

(a) The exception be upheld with costs; / Die eksepsie gehandhaaf word met koste;

(b) The Plaintiff’s Particulars of Claim be struck out; / Die Eiser se Besonderhede van
Vordering geskrap word;
 (c) The Defendant be granted such further or alternative relief as this court deems fit /
Die Verweeder verdere of alternatiewe regshulp gegun word soos die hof mag
goeddink.

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM / BESONDERHEDE VAN VORDERING

1. The Plaintiff is… / Die Eiser is…

2. The Defendant is… / Die Verweerder is…
3. On 1 June 2022 the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the sum of R150 000 in the bona fide and
reasonable, but mistaken, belief that such sum was owing by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. /
Op 1 Junie 2022 het die Eiser aan die Verweerder die bedrag van R150 000 betaal onder ‘n
redelike maar bona fide wanindruk dat dit was wat verskuldig was deur die Eiser aan die
Verweerder.
4. In the premises, the Defendant is liable to repay to the Plainitff the aforesaid sum of
R150 000./ In die omstandighede is die Verweerder aanspreeklik vir die terugbetaling aan die
Eiser van die voormelde bedrag van R150 000.

WHEREFORE…. / WESHALWE…

PLEA / PLEIT

1. Ad paragraphs 1 and 2 / Ad paragrawe 1 en 2

The Defendant admits these paragraphs. / Die Verweerder erken hierdie paragrawe.
2. Ad paragraph 3 / Ad paragraaf 3
The Defendant denies the averment. / Die Verweerder ontken die bewering.
3. Ad paragraph 4 / Ad paragraaf 4
In the premises, the Defendant denies that he is liable to repay to the plaintiff the sum of
R150 000. / In die omstandighede ontken die Verweerder dat hy aanspreeklik is om die eiser
‘n bedrag van R150 0000 te betaal.

NOTICE IN TERMS OF RULE 23(1) / KENNISGEWING IN TERME VAN REEL 23(1)

BE PLEASED TO TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff hereby affords to the Defendant an opportunity in
terms of rule 23(1) to remove the following cause of complaint which renders the Defendant’s Plea
vague and embarrassing: / GELIEWE KENNIS TE NEEM dat die Eiser hiermee aan die Verweerder
die geleentheid gun in terme van reel 23(1) om die volgende beswaar te verwyder aangesien dit die
Eiser se Besonderhede van Vordering vaag en verwarrend maak:
 1. In paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Plaintiff’s Claim the Plaintiff alleges that on 1 June 2022
he paid to the Defendant the sum of R150 000 in the reasonable and bona fide but mistaken
belief that such was what was owing by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. / In paragraaf 3 van die
Eiser se Besonderhede van Vordering beweer die Eiser dat op 1 Junie 2022 hy aan die
Verweerder die bedrag van R150 000 betaal het onder ‘n redelike en bona fide wanindruk dat
dit was wat verskuldig was deur die Eiser aan die Verweerder.

2. In paragraph 2 of the Defendant’s Plea the Defendant denies ‘the averment’ contained in
paragraph 3 of the Plaintiff’s Particulars of Claim. / In paragraaf 2 van die Verweerder se Pleit
ontken die Verweerder ‘die bewering’ soos vervat in paragraaf 3 van die Eiser se
besonderhede van vordering.

3. It cannot be determined from the Defendant’s Plea whether – / Dit kan nie bepaal word uit die
Verweerder se Pleit of –
a. The Defendant admits or denies that he made the payment; / die Verweerder erken of
ontken dat hy die betaling gemaak het nie;
b. The Defendant admits or denies that the payment was made bona fide; / Die
Verweerder erken of ontken dat die betaling bona fide gemaak is nie;
c. The Defendant admits or denies that the amount was not owing by the Plaintiff to the
Defendant. / Die Verweerder erken of ontken dat die bedrag nie verskuldig was aan
die Verweerder deur die Eiser.

TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that unless the aforesaid cuase of complaint is removed within 15 days of
delivery of this notice, the Plaintiff will except to the Defendant’s Plea accordingly. / GELIEWE
VERDERE KENNIS TE NEEM dat indien die oorsaak van die beswaar nie binne 15 dae na lewering
van hierdie kennisgewing verwyder word nie, sal die Eiser die bovermelde Agbare Hof nader om 'n
eksepsie op te werp teen die Verweerder se Pleit.

NOTICE OF EXCEPTION / KENNISGEWING VAN EKSEPSIE

BE PLEASED TO TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, having given the Defendant the opportunity to
remove the cause of complaint rendering his Plea vague and embarrassing by a notice in terms of
rule 23(1) served on the Defendant on…,hereby excepts to the Defendant’s Plea on the grounds set
out in the aforementioned notice. / GELIEWE KENNIS TE NEEM dat die Eiser, na die Verweerder
geleentheid gegun is om die oorsaak van die beswaar te verwyder by wyse van 'n kennisgewing in
terme van reel 23(1) wat op die Verweerder beteken is op… hiermee 'n eksepsie teen die Verweerder
opwerp aangesien dit vaag en verwarrend is vir die redes uiteengesit in voorgemelde kennisgewing.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays that – / WESHALWE smeek die Eiser dat –

1. The exception be upheld with costs; / Die eksepsie gehandhaaf word met koste;
2. The Defendant’s Plea be struck out; / Die Verweerder se Pleit geskrap word;
3. Further or alternative relief as this court deems fit. / Verdere of alternatiewe regshulp soos
die hof goeddink.
 PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
1.
The Plaintiff is Jill Samantha Khumalo, a major female pharmacist resident at 34 McKenzie
Avenue, Stellenbosch.
2.
The Defendant is Jim Swift, a major male auditor resident at 7 Kingbolt Crescent,
Stellenbosch.
3.
The Plaintiff is the owner of a BMW X5 motor vehicle with registration numbers and letters
CL 12121.
4.
On 5 January 2015 at the intersection of King and Queen Streets in Stellenbosch a collision
occurred between the BMW X5 with registration numbers and letters CL 12121 driven by
the Plaintiff and a Nissan Hardbody with registration numbers and letters CY 43434, the
vehicle of the Defendant. The vehicle with registration numbers and letters CFM 10101 was
driven by Sannie Schutte.
5.
The aforementioned collision was caused by the Defendant or Sannie Schutte, who was
negligent in one or more of the following respects:
5.1 He failed to keep a proper lookout;
5.2 He failed to reduce his speed whilst approaching a yellow traffic light and
subsequently failed to stop when the traffic light turned red;
5.3 He drove his vehicle at an excessive speed, taking the speed limit and circumstances
into account;
5.4 He drove his vehicle without due regard for other road users, specifically those of the
Plaintiff;
5.5 He failed to avoid a collision which, by the exercise of reasonable care and caution, he
could and ought to have avoided.
6.
As a result of the collision referred to in paragraph 4, the Plaintiff suffered damages in the
amount of R150 000, the fair, reasonable and necessary costs of towing and repairing the
Plaintiff’s vehicle to its pre-collision condition, which amount is made up in accordance with
the invoices for towing and repairing the vehicle received and is calculated as follows:
6.1 Removal and replacement of front passenger door:
R80 000: door
R10 000: labour
R10 000: spray painting
6.2 Removal and replacement of mid-panel:
R30 000: panel
R10 000: labour
R10 000: spray painting
7.
Despite proper and lawful demand the Defendant has failed or refuses to pay the
aforementioned amount or any part thereof as claimed to the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant in the following terms:
(a) Payment of the amount of R150 500;
(b) Interest on the above amount at 15,5% a tempore morae;
(c) Cost of the suit;
(d) Should the Defendant fail to pay the plaintiff’s taxed costs within 7 (seven) days from
receipt of the signed allocatur of the bill of costs, such legal costs will bear interest at a
rate of 15,5% per year calculated from and including the date of the signing of the
allocatur of the bill of costs to the date of payment.

NOTICE IN TERMS OF RULE 19(1)

KINDLY TAKE NOTICE that the Defendant excepts against the Plaintiff’s Particulars of Claim
because they are vague and embarrassing for the following reasons:
(a) The Plaintiff does not allege whether the Defendant was driving the Nissan Hardbody
vehicle with registration numbers and letters CY 43434 at the time of the accident and it
is unclear whether the Defendant has the necessary locus standi to be sued in this
action.
(b) It is unclear whether the vehicle driven by Sannie Schutte was involved in the collision
referred to in paragraph 4 of the Plaintiff’s Particulars of Claim and what the grounds
are for the inclusion of the reference to Sannie Schutte in those particulars, especially as
the Plaintiff’s claim is instituted against the Defendant only.
(c) The allegations of the Plaintiff with regard to the manner in which the collision occurred
are unclear as is who the Plaintiff alleges was negligent in causing the collision. The
reasons for the confusion are the Plaintiff’s reference to the negligence of either the
Defendant or Sannie Schutte and her references to “he” when setting out the grounds
for negligence. Furthermore, those grounds do not indicate who caused the vehicles to
collide.
(d) The Plaintiff refers to damages in the amount of R150 000 as calculated in paragraph 6
of her Particulars of Claim, but subsequently prays for payment in the amount of
R150 500. In the premises, the facts stated in the Plaintiff’s Particulars of Claim do not
support the relief claimed.

KINDLY TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, unless the cause of complaint is removed within 15
days from receipt of this notice, the Defendant will approach the above-mentioned
Honourable Court and raise an exception against the Plaintiff’s Particulars of Claim.

NOTICE OF EXCEPTION
BE PLEASED TO TAKE NOTICE that the Defendant having given the Plaintiff the opportunity
to remove the cause of complaint rendering his Particulars of Claim vague and embarrassing
by a notice in terms of rule 19(1) served on the Plaintiff on_________, hereby excepts to the
Plaintiff’s Particulars of Claim on the grounds set out in the aforementioned notice.

Wherefore the Defendant prays that:

1. The exception be upheld with costs and the Plaintiff’s Particulars of Claim is struck out.
2. Further or alternative relief as this court deems fit.