Century Civils CC and Another v Calsicrete Brickworks (Pty) Ltd; In Re: Century Civils CC v Calsibrick (Pty) Ltd (4145/2009) [2010] ZAGPPHC 618 (7 May 2010)
The court found that the amendment sought was to correct a misnomer in the citation of the defendant and not to substitute a non-existing party. The respondent was aware that it was the intended defendant, and the amendment was necessary to reflect the correct party. The plea of lis pendens does not bar the proceedings but may be raised in the main action or the second action for the court's convenience. The allegations made by the applicants, if proved, would entitle them to succeed, and the application for joinder was seriously made and not frivolous. The opposition to the application was not so complex as to warrant the employment of two counsel, and the costs of the opposed...
- Citation
- [2010] ZAGPPHC 618
- Parties
- Applicant: Century Civils CC; Applicant: Tienie van der Westhuizen Civil Engineering Consultants CC; Respondent: Calsicrete Brickworks (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Century Civils CC; Defendant: Calsibrick (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 7 May 2010
- Case Number
- 4145/2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Joinder and Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome
- Application for joinder and amendment granted; costs awarded against respondent.
- Judges
- Matojane
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Amendment of Pleadings, Lis Pendens, Costs Award
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Century Civils CC
Applicant
Tienie van der Westhuizen Civil Engineering Consultants CC
Applicant
Calsicrete Brickworks (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Century Civils CC
Plaintiff
Calsibrick (Pty) Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Joinder and Amendment of Pleadings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the second applicant should be joined as second plaintiff in the main action.
- 2 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend the particulars of claim to correct the citation of the defendant and substitute the particulars of claim.
- 3 Whether the plea of lis pendens raised by the respondent bars the joinder and amendment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the amendment sought was to correct a misnomer in the citation of the defendant and not to substitute a non-existing party. The respondent was aware that it was the intended defendant, and the amendment was necessary to reflect the correct party. The plea of lis pendens does not bar the proceedings but may be raised in the main action or the second action for the court's convenience. The allegations made by the applicants, if proved, would entitle them to succeed, and the application for joinder was seriously made and not frivolous. The opposition to the application was not so complex as to warrant the employment of two counsel, and the costs of the opposed...
Court Disposition
Application for joinder and amendment granted; costs awarded against respondent.
Orders
- Second applicant is joined as the second plaintiff under case number 4145/2009.
- Leave is granted to applicants to amend the pleadings under case number 4145/2009 to give effect to the joinder of the second applicant as the second plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment