Saint-Gobain Construction (Pty) Ltd v Mathula Investment and Construction CC and Others (112275/2023) [2026] ZAGPJHC 56 (21 January 2026)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2026 >> [2026] ZAGPJHC 56 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Saint-Gobain Construction (Pty) Ltd v Mathula Investment and Construction CC and Others (112275/2023) [2026] ZAGPJHC 56 (21 January 2026) Saint-Gobain Construction (Pty) Ltd v Mathula Investment and Construction CC and Others (112275/2023) [2026] ZAGPJHC 56 (21 January 2026) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2026_56.html sino date 21 January 2026 # IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA # GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO :  112275/2023 DATE :  21-01-2026 (1)  REPORTABLE:  NO (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)  REVISED DATE: 21 January 2026 In the matter between SAINT-GOBAIN CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD               Plaintiff and MATHULA INVESTMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CC AND OTHERS                           Defendants JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE WILSON, J :   The plaintiff brings a claim for fraud and unjustified enrichment against the defendants. This is an application to compel a response to the plaintiff’s request for further particulars. The plea filed in respect of both the claim for fraud and the claim for unjustified enrichment consists in substance of a bare denial.  The plaintiff took the view, quite understandably, that the bare denial was insufficient to disclose a defence - at least to the claim for unjustified enrichment. In order to work out what the defence to the enrichment claim is, the plaintiff seeks particularity of what payments, if any, the defendants admit receiving and whether those payments were for value under any contract between the parties. These are the standard particularities I would expect to see in any plea to an enrichment action of this nature. The best I can say about the defendants’ plea as it currently stands is that it is evasive. The plaintiff is plainly entitled to the rather limited particulars it seeks and I shall make an order compelling compliance with the request for further particulars in terms of the draft order handed up by the plaintiff’s counsel.  That draft is signed, dated and marked “X”. WILSON, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DATE :  21 January 2026 sino noindex make_database footer start