Judgment No. SC 24/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 455/16 not it had a contract with the appellant, it cannot be without a remedy. The suggestion was made that it even had a claim arising out of delict. [24] I am inclined to agree with learned counsel for the appellant that the cause of action a quo was most confusing. The cause of action based on a contract of agency was abandoned in favour of the rei vindicatio and depositum, which had not been pleaded. No evidence was led on the terms of such contract. To add to the confusion, before this Court, the possibility of the claim arising out of delict has also been thrown in. The manner in which the respondent handled its cause of action in the court a quo and before this Court is most unsatisfactory and not permissible. Implicit in the submissions by the respondent in support of the judgment of the court a quo is that pleadings serve no purpose. THE IMPORTANT PURPOSE OF PLEADINGS [25] The manner in which the respondent has handled its case both a quo and in this Court brings to the fore the question as to what the purpose of pleadings is. In general the purpose of pleadings is to clarify the issues between the parties that require determination by a court of law. Various decisions of the courts in this country and elsewhere have stressed this important principle. 25.1 In Durbach v Fairway Hotel, Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1081 (SR) the court remarked:“The whole purpose of pleadings is to bring clearly to the notice of the court and the parties to an action the issues upon which reliance is to be placed.” 25.2 Harwood BA in his text Odgers’ Principles of Pleading & Practice in Civil Actions in the High Court of Justice (16th edn, Stevens & Sons Ltd, London, 1957) states at page 72:- 10