Bath v Van Heerden & Brummer Inc (4926/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 230 (25 June 2019)

Bath v Van Heerden & Brummer Inc (4926/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 230 (25 June 2019)

The court held that the proposed amendment to the Defendants' special plea of prescription should be granted. The amendment does not introduce a new special plea but merely adds further factual instances to the existing timeline. The Plaintiff's objections based on privilege and prematurity are unfounded, as the admissibility of evidence is a matter for the trial court and not determined by the pleadings. The Plaintiff will not suffer prejudice, as he can replicate to the new averments and object to evidence at trial. The amendment facilitates proper ventilation of the dispute and does not change the nature or scope of the special plea. Costs should follow the result, as the Plaintiff's...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 230
Parties
Applicant: Harry Mark Deon Bath; Respondent: Van Heerden & Brummer Inc
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2019
Case Number
4926/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Amendment of Special Plea
Outcome
The Defendants' application for amendment is granted. The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the objection and the application to effect the amendment.
Judges
C E Thompson
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Privileged Communications, Prescription, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Privileged Communications Prescription Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Mark Deon Bath

Applicant

Van Heerden & Brummer Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Amendment of Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants should be permitted to amend their special plea of prescription.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment introduces privileged and therefore inadmissible evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment is premature and should be postponed to trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the proposed amendment to the Defendants' special plea of prescription should be granted. The amendment does not introduce a new special plea but merely adds further factual instances to the existing timeline. The Plaintiff's objections based on privilege and prematurity are unfounded, as the admissibility of evidence is a matter for the trial court and not determined by the pleadings. The Plaintiff will not suffer prejudice, as he can replicate to the new averments and object to evidence at trial. The amendment facilitates proper ventilation of the dispute and does not change the nature or scope of the special plea. Costs should follow the result, as the Plaintiff's...

Court Disposition

The Defendants' application for amendment is granted. The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the objection and the application to effect the amendment.

Orders

  • The Defendant’s amendment dated 24 May 2018 is granted.
  • The Plaintiff is to pay the costs occasioned by the objection to the amendment, including the costs of the application to effect the amendment.