Buchner and Another v Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Co Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: De Klerk J, Mynhardt J, Du Plessis J
• Judgment Date: 25 August 1993
• Docket Number: A1939/92
• Hearing Date: 25 August 1993
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division
• Citation: 1995 (1) SA 215 (T)

Buchner and Another v Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Co Ltd
1995 (1) SA 215 (T)

1995 (1) SA p215

Citation	1995 (1) SA 215 (T)
Case No	A1939/92
Court	Transvaal Provincial Division
Judge	De Klerk J, Mynhardt J, Du Plessis J
Heard	August 25, 1993
Judgment	August 25, 1993

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde E

Practice — Pleadings — Summons — Cause of action — Pleading of — Rule 18 of Uniform Rules of Court requiring pleading to contain clear and concise statement of material facts upon which pleader relying for his claim — F Summons alleging that 'defendants liable to reimburse the plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants dated 26 June 1987' — Such an expression of plaintiff's opinion and conclusions as to the facts and the legal consequences of those facts — Relevant facts which should have been set out were not only that G contract had been concluded but also that certain terms had been agreed upon in that contract — Conclusion that defendants were liable could only be reached or justified if those terms supported the conclusion set out in the summons — Opinion or conclusion as to what parties' liabilities were, even if undisputed, not becoming a statement of fact, and failure to H dispute such conclusion of no consequence — Summons accordingly not containing cause of action.

Headnote : Kopnota

The necessity, when pleading, to plead material facts does not have its origin in Rule 18 of the Uniform Rules of Court. It is fundamental to the I judicial process that the facts have to be established. The Court, on the established facts, then applies the rules of law and draws conclusions as regards the rights and obligations of the parties and gives judgment. A summons which propounds the plaintiff's own conclusions and opinions instead of the material facts is defective. Such a summons does not set out a cause of action. It would be wrong if a Court were to endorse a plaintiff's opinion by elevating it to a judgment without first J scrutinising the facts upon which the opinion is based. (At 216H/I-J.)

1995 (1) SA p216

A The respondent (plaintiff in the Court a quo) had issued a so-called simple summons against the appellants, in the format prescribed in Form 9 of the Rules of Court, claiming 'payment of the sum of R1 353 216,89, being the sum which its subsidiary companies, A (Pty) Ltd and B (Pty) Ltd, are obliged to pay to the First National Bank of Southern Africa Ltd in terms of certain suretyship and which sum, together with interest thereon at the rate of 20,25% per annum from 30 April 1992 to the date of...