Redefine Properties Limited v B Masiqhame Trading 224 CC t/a TNT Projects and Investments and Another

The plaintiff, Redefine Properties Limited, instituted an action against the first defendant, B Masiqhame Trading 224 CC t/a TNT Projects and Investments, and the second defendant, Thozama Nancy Tongo, based on a lease agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The plaintiff claimed rental and ancillary charges allegedly due when the lease was terminated, as well as damages for the remainder of the lease period. The defendants filed a Notice under Uniform Rule 23(1) excepting to the plaintiff's particulars of claim on grounds that they lacked averments necessary to sustain an action and were vague and embarrassing. At the hearing, the defendants' newly briefed counsel sought a postponement from the bar without a supporting affidavit, which was refused. The defendants' counsel then withdrew, having no brief to argue the exception on the merits.

• Whether the defendants' application for a postponement from the bar without a supporting affidavit should be granted.
• Whether the defendants' Notice under Rule 23(1) constituted a valid exception for 'vague and embarrassing' complaints where no exception was subsequently filed under Rule 23(1)(b).
• Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim lacked averments necessary to sustain an action based on the complaints raised in paragraph 1 of the Notice.

The defendants' exceptions as contained in the Notice were dismissed. The first and second defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the exception on a joint and several basis. The defendants were directed to deliver a plea within twenty days.

For a postponement to be granted, the application must be properly motivated and substantiated, with a full and satisfactory explanation provided, and it must be in the interests of justice considering both the immediate parties and the broader public interest. In exception proceedings, where a party intends to except on the ground that a pleading is vague and embarrassing, compliance with Rule 23(1)(b) requires that an exception be formally delivered after giving the opposing party an opportunity to remove the cause of complaint; failure to do so means no valid exception on that ground is before the court.

The court observed that it was unnecessary to consider whether the 'vague and embarrassing' exceptions were time-barred, as contended by the plaintiff, since they were being dismissed on other grounds. The court also noted that while the exception lacked merit, there was insufficient evidence to conclude the defendants were engaged in an abuse of process or that the exception was vexatious, thus declining to award punitive costs.

This case reinforces the procedural requirements for taking exceptions under Uniform Rule 23(1) in South African civil procedure, clarifying that a notice under Rule 23(1)(a) alone is insufficient to place 'vague and embarrassing' complaints before the court — a formal exception under Rule 23(1)(b) must follow. It also confirms the Constitutional Court's approach in Psychological Society of SA v Qwelane regarding the stringent requirements for postponement applications.