THE Free State High Court has dismissed an attempt by electricity utility Centlec Ltd to block a rental claim amounting to R8.7-million brought against it by the Free State Development Corporation (FDC), ruling that the FDC’s case was clear and properly pleaded.
In a judgment delivered by Acting Judge X Ntshulana, the court found that the FDC’s particulars of claim – which centre on arrear rental payments of R8 788 851.99 allegedly owed by Centlec – were sufficiently detailed to allow the power distributor to respond.
Centlec, a municipal entity wholly owned by the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality, had filed an exception in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court, arguing that the FDC’s court papers were “vague and embarrassing” and lacked the necessary particulars to sustain an action.
The FDC, a provincial development agency tasked with promoting economic growth, instituted action against Centlec for the arrears arising from a written lease agreement concluded in November 2016 for industrial premises in Botshabelo measuring approximately 2 319 square metres.
The lease, which commenced on 1 May 2016, provided for monthly rental payments ranging from R46 559.19 to R56 336.52 over an initial three-year term.
Centlec contended that the FDC had attached only an incomplete version of the lease to its summons, omitting key pages – including those bearing the parties’ signatures – and that discrepancies in the amounts claimed rendered the FDC’s case incoherent.
The utility also pointed to a prior letter of demand reflecting a lower figure of R8.6 million, arguing that the inconsistency made it impossible to formulate a proper defence.
Judge Ntshulana rejected these arguments, holding that the FDC’s pleadings “contain sufficient particularity to enable the excipient to plead thereto”.
The court ruled that the existence and terms of the lease agreement were adequately pleaded and that any disputes regarding the precise amount owed or the completeness of the annexure could be ventilated during trial through evidence.
“The respondent’s particulars of claim contain averments with a sufficient degree of particularity to identify the existence of a contract . . . They are therefore not vague and embarrassing,” Judge Ntshulana stated.
“The fact that the amount contained in the letter of demand was not the same as that in the summons may be pleaded as such by the excipient.”
The court further observed that exceptions should not be used to pre-emptively challenge the interpretation of contracts, noting that such issues are best resolved through evidence at trial.
Accordingly, the court dismissed Centlec’s exception with costs, finding no reason to award costs on any other basis.
Centlec was represented by Advocate C Snyman, instructed by Raynard & Associates Inc, while Advocate EG Lubbe appeared for the FDC, instructed by Peyper Attorneys.
The matter was heard on 5 September 2025 and judgment delivered on 24 October 2025.