Centrafin (Pty) Ltd v Food and Trees For Africa (50143/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 415 (5 September 2019)

Centrafin (Pty) Ltd v Food and Trees For Africa (50143/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 415 (5 September 2019)

The court held that the applicant's proposed amendment to its particulars of claim under Rule 28 was permissible and did not require a supporting affidavit. The objections raised by the respondent regarding excipiability, vagueness, and withdrawal of admission were dismissed as lacking merit. The withdrawal of annexure 'D' did not constitute withdrawal of an admission, and the respondent would not be prejudiced. The introduction of annexure 'F' was not excipiable due to non-discovery, as documents attached to pleadings do not require discovery. The court found that there was sufficient time for the respondent to adjust its plea and prepare for trial. The applicant, seeking an indulgence,...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 415
Parties
Applicant: Centrafin (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Food and Trees For Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2019
Case Number
50143/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Amendment granted; applicant to pay costs of amendment including costs of opposition.
Judges
C J van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 28, Withdrawal of Admission, Costs of Amendment
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Uniform Rules of Court Rule 28 Withdrawal of Admission Costs of Amendment

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Centrafin (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Food and Trees For Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend its particulars of claim under Rule 28 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether a supporting affidavit is required for the proposed amendment.
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendment would render the particulars of claim excipiable, vague and embarrassing, or unsound in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's proposed amendment to its particulars of claim under Rule 28 was permissible and did not require a supporting affidavit. The objections raised by the respondent regarding excipiability, vagueness, and withdrawal of admission were dismissed as lacking merit. The withdrawal of annexure 'D' did not constitute withdrawal of an admission, and the respondent would not be prejudiced. The introduction of annexure 'F' was not excipiable due to non-discovery, as documents attached to pleadings do not require discovery. The court found that there was sufficient time for the respondent to adjust its plea and prepare for trial. The applicant, seeking an indulgence,...

Court Disposition

Amendment granted; applicant to pay costs of amendment including costs of opposition.

Orders

  • The amendment to the particulars of claim is granted.
  • The applicant shall bear the costs of the amendment, including the costs of opposition.