Alanza Boerdery (EDMS) Beperk v Risseeuw N.O and Others (38325/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 114 (20 March 2014)

Alanza Boerdery (EDMS) Beperk v Risseeuw N.O and Others (38325/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 114 (20 March 2014)

The court found that the applicant's error in describing the property was a mere typographical mistake, which was adequately explained and did not prejudice the respondents, who were fully aware of the true subject of the dispute. The respondents' opposition to the amendment was deemed frivolous and intended to delay the proceedings. Leave to amend was granted, and the respondents were afforded time to respond to the amended claim. The court held that the respondents should bear the costs of the amendment application and the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement, including the costs of senior counsel, as a mark of disapproval for their conduct.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 114
Parties
Applicant: Alanza Boerdery (EDMS) Beperk; Respondent: Jacobus Nicolaas Risseeuw N.O; Respondent: Jan Celliers Risseeuw N.O; Respondent: Gerhard Risseeuw N.O
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2014
Case Number
38325/13
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Motion Proceedings for Eviction and Amendment Application
Outcome
Leave to amend granted; eviction application postponed; respondents ordered to pay costs of amendment and postponement.
Judges
Tuchten
Legal Topics
Amendment of Process, Eviction Proceedings, Costs Award, Lease Agreement, Specific Performance
Civil Procedure Land and Property Amendment of Process Eviction Proceedings Costs Award Lease Agreement Specific Performance

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

Alanza Boerdery (EDMS) Beperk

Applicant

Jacobus Nicolaas Risseeuw N.O

Respondent

Jan Celliers Risseeuw N.O

Respondent

Gerhard Risseeuw N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Motion Proceedings for Eviction and Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the notice of motion to correct a typographical error in the property description.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are entitled to a postponement to respond to the amended claim.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the amendment application and the postponement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's error in describing the property was a mere typographical mistake, which was adequately explained and did not prejudice the respondents, who were fully aware of the true subject of the dispute. The respondents' opposition to the amendment was deemed frivolous and intended to delay the proceedings. Leave to amend was granted, and the respondents were afforded time to respond to the amended claim. The court held that the respondents should bear the costs of the amendment application and the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement, including the costs of senior counsel, as a mark of disapproval for their conduct.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted; eviction application postponed; respondents ordered to pay costs of amendment and postponement.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend paragraph 1 of its notice of motion by substituting 'Gedeelte 34' with 'Gedeelte 43'.
  • The main application for eviction is postponed sine die.