Group Five Building Ltd v Government of the Republic of South Africa (Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs)

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1993 (2) SA 593 (A)

Group Five Building Ltd v Government of the Republic of South Africa (Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs)
1993 (2) SA 593 (A)

1993 (2) SA p593

Citation	1993 (2) SA 593 (A)
Court	Appellate Division
Judge	Corbett CJ, Hefer JA, vivier JA, Eksteen JA and Kriegler AJA
Heard	November 10, 1992
Judgment	February 18, 1993

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Practice — Pleadings — Exception — Exception to particulars of claim on ground that they disclose no cause of action — Exception succeeding — C Invariable practice of our Courts is to order that pleading be set aside and plaintiff be given leave to file an amended pleading within a certain period of time — Absence of an indication at hearing of exception that plaintiff wished to amend particulars of claim not entitling successful excipient to an order dismissing plaintiff's action. D

Engineering and construction law — Building contract — Extras and alterations to works — Semble: Something to be said for implication of a term that extras and alterations to be ordered at a reasonable stage in relation to works as a whole where the contract machinery for valuing E variations would not permit of any remunerative allowance for lateness or otherwise inopportune timing of relevant instruction.

Headnote : Kopnota

In cases where an exception has successfully been taken to a plaintiff's initial pleading, whether it be a declaration or the further particulars of a combined summons, on the ground that it discloses no cause of action, F the invariable practice of South African Courts has been to order that the pleading be set aside and that the plaintiff be given leave, if so advised, to file an amended pleading within a certain period of time. Such leave has been granted irrespective of whether at the hearing of argument on exception the plaintiff applied for such leave or not. The appropriate and obligatory time for making an application for leave to amend is when the judgment setting aside the pleading has been delivered. The absence of an indication at the time of the hearing of the exception that the G plaintiff wishes to amend its particulars of claim (or

1993 (2) SA p594

A declaration) does not entitle the successful excipient to an order dismissing the plaintiff's action.

Semble: There is something to be said for the implication of a term 'that extras and alterations (to the works provided for in a building contract) will be ordered at a reasonable stage in relation to the works as a whole' (Duncan Wallace Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts 10th ed at 327) where the contract machinery for valuing variations would not permit B of any remunerative allowance being made for the lateness or otherwise inopportune timing of the relevant instruction.

The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division in Group Five Building Ltd v Government of the Republic of South Africa (Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs) 1991 (3) SA 787 confirmed in part and reversed in part.

Case Information

Appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division (Leveson J, C Joffe J and Myburgh AJ), dismissing an appeal from a decision of Streicher J. The nature of the pleadings appears from the judgment of Corbett CJ.

D V Duke SC (with him E J A Dane) for the appellant referred to the following authorities (the heads of argument having been prepared by J R D Gautschi SC and E J A Dane): Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration 1974 (3) SA 506 (A); F G Minter Ltd v Welsh Health & Technical Services Organisation 13 Building Law Reports 1 (CA); Duncan Wallace Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts 10th ed at 631; Kelly & Hingle's Trustees v Union Government 1928 TPD 272 at 284; McKenzie E The Law of Building and Engineering Contracts and Arbitration 4th ed at 15; Wells v The Army and Navy Co-operative Society Ltd 86 Law Times 764; Sachs v Venter 1954 (2) SA 427 (W) at 429; Lindner and Another v Vogtmannsberger and Another 1965 (4) SA 108 (O) at 111; Gardner v Richardt 1974 (3) SA 768 (C) at 773; Cairns (Pty) Ltd v Playdon & Co Ltd 1948 (3) SA 99 (A) F at 121-4; Van Rensburg v Straughan 1914 AD 317 at 326; Bugler's Post (Pty) Ltd v Secretary for Inland Revenue 1974 (3) SA 28 (A) at 34-5; Grobbelaar v Van der Vyver 1954 (1) SA 248 (A) at 254; Christie's Fish Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Ornelas Fishing Co (Pty) Ltd 1978 (3) SA 431 (C) at 432B, 434D; Herbstein and Van Winsen The Civil Practice of the Superior Courts in South Africa (1954 ed) at 274; Santam Insurance Co Ltd v Manqele 1975 (1) SA 607 (N) at 608B-C; Johannesburg Municipality v Kerr 1915 WLD G 35 at 37; Myers v Abramson 1951 (3) SA 438 (C) at 450H-451A; Salzmann v Holmes 1914 AD 152 at 156; Joubert v Steenkamp 1909 TS 169 at 173; Goodall v Hoogendoorn Ltd 1926 AD 11 at 16; Ketteringham v City of Cape Town 1934 AD 80 at 85; Berrange v Samuels II 1938 WLD 189 at 190; Lillicrap, H Wassenaar and Partners v Pilkington Brothers (SA) (Pty) Ltd 1985 (1) SA 475 (A) at 506G-H; International Combustion Africa Ltd v Billy's Transport 1981 (1) SA 599 (W) at 606E; Springson v Commonwealth Trading Co Ltd; Mail v Du Plessis 1948 (1) SA 1165 (W) at 1167; Jackson v SA National Institute for Crime Prevention 1976 (3) SA 1 (A); Crawford-Brunt v Kavnat 1967 (4) SA 308 (C) at 310G-H; Curtis v Meyer 1973 (1) SA 363 (T) at 368H-369A; I South African Defence and Aid Fund and Another v Minister of Justice 1967 (1) SA 31 (A) at 38H; Theunissen v Transvaalse Lewendehawe Ko-op Bpk 1988 (2) SA 493 (A) at 500E; City of Cape Town v National Meat Suppliers Ltd 1938 CPD 59 at 63-4; Kotsopoulos v Bilardi 1970 (2) SA 391 (C) at 395C-E; Amalgamated Footwear & Leather Industries v Jordan & Co Ltd 1948 (2) SA 891 (C) J at 893; Wilson v Die Afrikaanse Pers Publikasies (Edms) Bpk 1971

1993 (2) SA p595

A (3) SA 455 (T) at 463B-D; Beck Pleadings in Civil Actions 3rd (1965) ed at 94 et seq; Brown Bros Ltd v Doise 1955 (1) SA 75 (W) at 77A; Republikeinse Publikasies (Edms) Bpk v Afrikaanse Pers Publikasies (Edms) Bpk 1972 (1) SA 773 (A) at 783A-D; Mynhardt v Mynhardt 1986 (1) SA 456 (T) at 462B-F; Natal Fresh Produce Growers Association and Others v Agroserve (Pty) Ltd and Others 1991 (3) SA 795 (N) at 800F et seq; Churchill v Standard B General Insurance Co Ltd 1977 (1) SA 506 (A) at 516G-517B; Rooskrans v Minister van Polisie 1973 (1) SA 273 (T); Minister of Police v Gasa 1980 (3) SA 387 (N); Van Vuuren v Boshoff 1964 (1) SA 395 (T); Goodson v Grierson [1908] 1 KB 761; Trans-African Insurance Co Ltd v Maluleka 1956 (2) SA 273 (A) at 278F-G, 279C; Coronel v Gordon Estate GM Co Ltd 1902 TS 112 at 115. C

G L Grobler SC (with him R J Raath) for the respondent referred to the following authorities: Union Government (Minister of Railways) v Faux Ltd 1916 AD 105 at 112; Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration 1974 (3) SA 506 (A) at 531H, 532A-C, 532H; Nel v Nelspruit Motors (Edms) Bpk 1961 (1) SA 582 (A) at 584B; Mullin (Pty) Ltd v Benade D Ltd 1952 (1) SA 211 (A) at 214F-H; Resisto Dairy (Pty) Ltd v Auto Protection Insurance Co Ltd 1963 (1) SA 632 (A) at 644G-H; Kelly & Hingle's Trustees v Union Government 1928 TPD 272; Hayne & Co v Kaffrarian Steam Mill Co 1914 AD 363 at 371-2; Rennie NO v South African Sea Products Ltd 1986 (2) SA 138 (C) at 143F; Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Ocean E Manufacturing Ltd 1990 (3) SA 610 (A) at 618G-I; R v Hugo 1926 AD 268 at 271; Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Kruger 1978 (3) SA 656 (A) at 663F; S v Marais 1983 (1) SA 1028 (T); S v Cocklin en 'n Ander 1971 (3) SA 776 (A) at 781C-E; Swinfen v Lord Chelmsford 157 ER 1436 at 1449; R v Matonsi 1958 (2) SA 450 (A) at 456D; Santam Insurance Co Ltd v Manqele 1975 (1) SA 607 (D) at 610C; S v Mkhise 1988 (2) SA 868 (A) at 874D; F Kistensamy v Bramdaw and Others 1962 (3) SA 797 (D) at 798D-F; Jewish Colonial Trust Ltd v Estate Nathan 1940 AD 163 at 174-5; Pietermaritzburg City Council v Local Transportation Board, Pietermaritzburg 1960 (1) SA 254 (N) at 256E; Soma v Morulane NO 1975 (3) SA 53 (T) at 55A-B; Central Merchant Bank Ltd v Oranje Benefit Society 1975 (4) SA 588 (C); G International Combustion Africa Ltd v Billy's Transport 1981 (1) SA 599 (W); Christies Fish Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Ornelas Fishing Co (Pty) Ltd 1978 (3) SA 431 (C) at 432B; Natal Fresh Produce Growers' Association and Others v Agroserve (Pty) Ltd and Others 1991 (3) SA 795 (N); Cohen Amler's Precedents of Pleadings 2nd ed at 264; 3rd ed at 133, 134; Lessing and H Kuper Voorbeelde van Hofpleitstukke at 3; Isaacs Beck's Theory and Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions 5th ed at 123; Herbstein and Van Winsen The Civil Practice of the Superior Courts in South Africa 3rd ed at 341.

I Cur adv vult.

Postea (February 18).

Judgment

Corbett, CJ.:

The appellant company carries on business as a building and engineering contractor. On about 5 May 1983 appellant entered into a J contract with the respondent, the South African Government (represented

1993 (2) SA p596

Corbett CJ

A by the Director-General: Community Development), in terms whereof appellant undertook to erect certain buildings at Walldoorn, Pretoria ('the building contract'). In July 1988 appellant instituted action in the Transvaal Provincial Division claiming payment of the sum of R632 578,95, B interest and costs of suit. This claim was alleged to arise from the building contract. The respondent took exception to appellant's particulars of claim on the grounds that it disclosed no cause of action or, alternatively, was vague and embarrassing. At first instance the exception was upheld by Streicher J, who ordered that 'plaintiff's action C is dismissed with costs'. An appeal to the Full Court of the Transvaal was dismissed with costs (Leveson J, Joffe J and Myburgh AJ concurring). The judgment of the Full Court has been reported: see Group Five...