DAMAGES ASSIGNMENT 1 (lpl4802)
The court cites the need that an unliquidated claim for damages be pursued by the
institution of an action as justification for adhering to the acknowledged practice that
general damages for defamation must be launched in an action proceeding.
Defamation cases are also included in this. The position, which is represented in the
Uniform Rules of Court, has always been the position, the court reaffirmed. Uniform
Rule 17(2) requires anyone asserting unliquidated damages to use a long form
summons and submit particulars of claim, and Uniform Rule 18(10) requires anyone
seeking damages to specify those damages in a way that will allow the defendant to
reasonably determine the amount of those damages and make a defense thereto.
Additionally, it stated that much more precision is needed when claiming damages
for personal injuries. Uniform Rule 32 limits claims based on a liquid document, a
liquidated amount in money, the handover of specific moveable property, and
ejectment in summary judgment processes. It is not an option for claims involving
unliquidated damages.
Additionally, by their very nature, claims for unliquidated damages require the court
to determine a sum that is just and reasonable in light of a variety of ambiguous and
incommensurable elements. This exercise cannot be done in court through an
application. The Court then cited Harms DP's statement in Cadac, according to
which motion proceedings are not designed to resolve factual disagreements. Illiquid
claims by their very nature need the resolution of factual concerns because they are
primarily used for the settlement of legal issues.
The court also cited Grindrod (Pty) Ltd v. Delport and Others, in which the court
stated that it "enjoins any party claiming damages to provide sufficient information to
enable the opposing party to know why the particular amount being claimed as
damages is actually being claimed" in relation to Uniform Rule 18(10). The
requirements of Uniform Rule 18(12), which state that the pleadings are judged to be
The court cites the need that an unliquidated claim for damages be pursued by the
institution of an action as justification for adhering to the acknowledged practice that
general damages for defamation must be launched in an action proceeding.
Defamation cases are also included in this. The position, which is represented in the
Uniform Rules of Court, has always been the position, the court reaffirmed. Uniform
Rule 17(2) requires anyone asserting unliquidated damages to use a long form
summons and submit particulars of claim, and Uniform Rule 18(10) requires anyone
seeking damages to specify those damages in a way that will allow the defendant to
reasonably determine the amount of those damages and make a defense thereto.
Additionally, it stated that much more precision is needed when claiming damages
for personal injuries. Uniform Rule 32 limits claims based on a liquid document, a
liquidated amount in money, the handover of specific moveable property, and
ejectment in summary judgment processes. It is not an option for claims involving
unliquidated damages.
Additionally, by their very nature, claims for unliquidated damages require the court
to determine a sum that is just and reasonable in light of a variety of ambiguous and
incommensurable elements. This exercise cannot be done in court through an
application. The Court then cited Harms DP's statement in Cadac, according to
which motion proceedings are not designed to resolve factual disagreements. Illiquid
claims by their very nature need the resolution of factual concerns because they are
primarily used for the settlement of legal issues.
The court also cited Grindrod (Pty) Ltd v. Delport and Others, in which the court
stated that it "enjoins any party claiming damages to provide sufficient information to
enable the opposing party to know why the particular amount being claimed as
damages is actually being claimed" in relation to Uniform Rule 18(10). The
requirements of Uniform Rule 18(12), which state that the pleadings are judged to be
