After receiving the summons, the first respondent delivered a request for further particulars with a notice in terms of rule 23(1) of the old Rules of the High Court calling for the removal of the cause of complaint. The applicant sought to remove the cause of complaint by annexing what it says is the correct written agreement to its further particulars. The applicant explicitly stated that an incorrect written agreement had been initially annexed. The first respondent then excepted to the particulars of claim on four grounds. The first ground of exception related to the incorrect agreement initially attached. The second ground was that the applicant relied on a different agreement relating to different transactions and subject matters. The third ground concerned the provision in the 'correct agreement' which fixed the storage rates to be charged. The fourth ground was that the correct agreement had been impermissibly attached to the further particulars contrary to the provisions of rule 28. In relation to the first and fourth grounds, the court held that the a quo agreement initially attached to the particulars of claim did not support the applicant’s claim as pleaded. However, the applicant sought to attach the correct written portion of the agreement. The court rejected the contention that the particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing, because the correct written portion of the agreement was impermissibly attached to the further particulars. The court reasoned that the contention was a purely procedural objection that should have been raised as an irregular proceeding in terms of rule 30. In any event, the attachment of the correct
After receiving the summons, the first respondent delivered a request for further particulars with a notice in terms of rule 23(1) of the old Rules of the High Court calling for the removal of the cause of complaint. The applicant sought to remove the cause of complaint by annexing what it says is the correct written agreement to its further particulars. The applicant explicitly stated that an incorrect written agreement had been initially annexed. The first respondent then excepted to the particulars of claim on four grounds. The first ground of exception related to the incorrect agreement initially attached. The second ground was that the applicant relied on a different agreement relating to different transactions and subject matters. The third ground concerned the provision in the 'correct agreement' which fixed the storage rates to be charged. The fourth ground was that the correct agreement had been impermissibly attached to the further particulars contrary to the provisions of rule 28. In relation to the first and fourth grounds, the court a quo held that the agreement initially attached to the particulars of claim did not support the applicant’s claim as pleaded. However, the applicant sought to attach the correct written portion of the agreement. The court rejected the contention that the particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing, because the correct written portion of the agreement was impermissibly attached to the further particulars. The court reasoned that the contention was a purely procedural objection that should have been raised as an irregular proceeding in terms of rule 30. In any event, the attachment of the correct
Ardea%20Investment%20v%20Namibian%20Ports%20Authority%20(SCR%204-2013)[2017]%20NASC%20(28%20March%202017).docx