The respondent (Telecontract) instituted two actions against the applicant (Zimbabwe Online) claiming outstanding balances for internet access provider services. The respondent filed declarations spanning over six pages in each case. The applicant filed requests for further particulars - 50 requests in HC 8118/10, of which only one was supplied. The respondent refused to supply the requested particulars on the basis that: (1) the particulars were within the defendant's knowledge as it had copies of the agreements and invoices, and (2) the requests related to matters of evidence or law which were not required for purposes of pleading. This refusal prompted the applicant to bring court applications to compel provision of the further particulars requested on 10 December 2010. The two applications were consolidated as they involved the same parties and similar issues.
Both applications in HC 6895/11 and HC 6896/11 were granted in terms of their respective draft orders. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs on the scale of legal practitioner and client.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) Particulars are intended to provide a more precise and fuller statement of issues to prevent a party from being taken by surprise at trial; (2) A litigant is entitled to particulars of matters in respect of which the onus is on the opponent; (3) A party cannot refuse to provide further particulars merely on the basis that the information is within the other party's knowledge or that the party has access to relevant documents; (4) Where pleadings are of a technical nature and lack sufficient particularity, the requesting party is entitled to further particulars to enable them to know the case they must meet and to decide whether to admit or deny allegations; (5) Conduct in refusing to provide justifiable further particulars without good cause can be considered vexatious, reckless or frivolous warranting costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.
The court made observations cautioning against abuse of the further particulars procedure through unnecessary and unduly lengthy requests that cloud real issues between parties (citing Purdon v Muller). However, the court distinguished the present case as one where the lengthy requests were justified by the technical nature of the claims and the inadequacy of the pleadings. The court also noted that the declarations were susceptible to exception but commended the applicant for taking the less expensive route of requesting particulars rather than filing exceptions. The court observed that the matter could have been resolved amicably and inexpensively if the respondent had shown the slightest cooperation, characterizing the respondent's attitude as that of one who deliberately and stubbornly refused to bring a dispassionate mind to bear on the dispute.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean civil procedure as it clarifies the circumstances in which a party is entitled to further particulars and the limits of refusing to provide such particulars. It emphasizes that technical and complex claims require fuller and more precise pleadings, and that the right to further particulars cannot be defeated merely by asserting that information is within the other party's knowledge or relates to evidence. The case also provides guidance on when costs on a legal practitioner and client scale are appropriate in the context of refusal to provide particulars. While this is a Zimbabwean case, it applies principles of civil procedure that are common to South African law, drawing on South African authorities and would be persuasive in South African courts dealing with similar issues of pleadings and particulars.