Abreu and Another v Petsana Family Meat & Chicken CC (2327/2005) [2016] ZAGPPHC 276 (22 April 2016)

Abreu and Another v Petsana Family Meat & Chicken CC (2327/2005) [2016] ZAGPPHC 276 (22 April 2016)

The court held that the primary purpose of allowing amendments is to ensure that the real issues between the parties are determined and justice is done. The court found no evidence of bad faith or an attempt to withdraw admissions by the plaintiffs. The defendants are not prejudiced, as they are afforded an opportunity to raise a special plea of prescription. The amendment does not defeat the purpose of the trial, and both parties will have equal opportunities to present their cases. Accordingly, the amendment is granted, and the matter is allowed to proceed to its natural conclusion.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 276
Parties
Plaintiff: J. E De Abreu; Plaintiff: J. A Fernandes; Defendant: Pestana Family Meat & Chicken CC; Defendant: V. Pestana
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 April 2016
Case Number
2327/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Application to Amend Particulars of Claim During Partly Heard Trial
Outcome
Amendment of particulars of claim granted; defendants permitted to raise special plea; matter to proceed.
Judges
VRSN Nkosi
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Prescription, Special Plea, Rule 28, Trial Management
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Prescription Special Plea Rule 28 Trial Management

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. E De Abreu

Plaintiff

J. A Fernandes

Plaintiff

Pestana Family Meat & Chicken CC

Defendant

V. Pestana

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Application to Amend Particulars of Claim During Partly Heard Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend their particulars of claim during a partly-heard trial.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment introduces a new cause of action that has prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants will suffer prejudice as a result of the amendment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the primary purpose of allowing amendments is to ensure that the real issues between the parties are determined and justice is done. The court found no evidence of bad faith or an attempt to withdraw admissions by the plaintiffs. The defendants are not prejudiced, as they are afforded an opportunity to raise a special plea of prescription. The amendment does not defeat the purpose of the trial, and both parties will have equal opportunities to present their cases. Accordingly, the amendment is granted, and the matter is allowed to proceed to its natural conclusion.

Court Disposition

Amendment of particulars of claim granted; defendants permitted to raise special plea; matter to proceed.

Orders

  • The amendment of the particulars of claim is allowed and the defendant is offered an opportunity to raise its special plea accordingly.
  • The partly-heard matter is allowed to proceed to its natural end.