Sakunda Energy (Private) Limited and Others v Mayor Logistics (Private) Limited and Another

In November 2017, the plaintiff (Mayor Logistics) instituted action against the defendants (Sakunda Energy and others) claiming payment of certain amounts of money due and payable in terms of a compromise agreement entered between the parties. The defendants had not yet filed a plea, but instead filed two requests for further particulars to the claim. The last request was filed on 29 November 2017, to which the plaintiff responded that the particulars requested were not necessary for the defendants to plead. The defendants then brought an application to compel the furnishing of further particulars in terms of Order 21 Rule 141(b) of the High Court Rules, 1971. The plaintiff opposed the application.

• Whether the defendants were entitled to the further particulars requested under Order 21 Rule 141(b) of the High Court Rules, 1971
• Whether the particulars sought were necessary for the defendants to plead
• Whether the defendants had demonstrated they would be embarrassed in their pleading without the requested particulars
• Whether the request for particulars constituted a fishing expedition

The application to compel the furnishing of further particulars was dismissed with costs.

A litigant is entitled to particulars only of averments forming part of the opposing case and matters in respect of which the onus is on the opponent. A litigant is not entitled to request particulars of matters on which they themselves bear the onus. Particulars will not be ordered of matters which form no part of the plaintiff's cause of action or which relate to matters extraneous to the facta probanda put forward by the plaintiff. A party seeking further particulars must aver that without the information requested they would be embarrassed in their pleading, and must demonstrate in what way they would be embarrassed thereby necessitating the furnishing of the requested particulars.

The court observed that the purpose of seeking further particulars is not to obtain information that might be used during cross-examination. Such use of the procedure amounts to a fishing expedition and is improper.

This case reinforces important principles regarding requests for further particulars in Zimbabwean civil procedure. It emphasizes the limits on the right to particulars, establishing that litigants cannot use requests for particulars as fishing expeditions or to obtain information about matters on which they bear the onus. The case also underscores the procedural requirement that a party seeking further particulars must demonstrate that they would be embarrassed in their pleading without such particulars. This helps prevent abuse of the discovery process and maintains the proper boundaries of pre-trial procedure.