A.J.B v T.S.C (19568/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 979 (31 August 2023)

A.J.B v T.S.C (19568/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 979 (31 August 2023)

The court held that the applicant had made out a case for amendment of the notice of motion. The amendment was not shown to be mala fide, nor did it cause prejudice to the respondent that could not be compensated by a costs order. The respondent's main concern was the ability to supplement papers, which the applicant did not oppose. The court found that the principles governing amendment of pleadings favour granting leave to amend unless injustice or mala fides is present. The court also noted that section 34 of the Constitution does not preclude the applicant from raising issues of fairness and effectiveness, and that the respondent would not be denied access to the courts. Accordingly,...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 979
Parties
Applicant: A J B; Respondent: T S C
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 2023
Case Number
19568/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Amend / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Leave to amend the notice of motion is granted. The respondent is permitted to supplement his papers within 10 days of service of the amendment. Each party to pay their respective legal costs.
Judges
Noko
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Maintenance Order Variation, Jurisdiction, Access to Courts, Doctrine of Effectiveness
Civil Procedure Family and Children Amendment of Pleadings Maintenance Order Variation Jurisdiction Access to Courts Doctrine of Effectiveness

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A J B

Applicant

T S C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Amend / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has made out a case for amendment of the notice of motion.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment is excipiable or discloses a cause of action.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the respondent that cannot be compensated by a costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant had made out a case for amendment of the notice of motion. The amendment was not shown to be mala fide, nor did it cause prejudice to the respondent that could not be compensated by a costs order. The respondent's main concern was the ability to supplement papers, which the applicant did not oppose. The court found that the principles governing amendment of pleadings favour granting leave to amend unless injustice or mala fides is present. The court also noted that section 34 of the Constitution does not preclude the applicant from raising issues of fairness and effectiveness, and that the respondent would not be denied access to the courts. Accordingly,...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend the notice of motion is granted. The respondent is permitted to supplement his papers within 10 days of service of the amendment. Each party to pay their respective legal costs.

Orders

  • The amendment as set out in the notice of amend is granted.
  • The respondent is permitted to supplement his papers within 10 days of service of the amendment.