Cornelissen Incorporated v Nama Khoi Local Municipality (2754/2016) [2023] ZANCHC 28 (15 June 2023)

Cornelissen Incorporated v Nama Khoi Local Municipality (2754/2016) [2023] ZANCHC 28 (15 June 2023)

The court found that the proposed amendments do not introduce a new cause of action but rather supplement the existing claim by adding alternative or additional grounds for authority of the respondent's representatives. The objections raised by the respondent regarding mala fides and prejudice were not substantiated; delay and prior assurances at pre-trial conference do not, in themselves, constitute mala fides. The respondent's objection based on prescription was not properly raised in terms of Rule 28(3) and was therefore not entertained. The court held that amendments should be granted unless mala fides or irremediable prejudice is shown, which was not the case here. The applicant was...

Citation
[2023] ZANCHC 28
Parties
Applicant: Cornelissen Incorporated; Respondent: Nama Khoi Local Municipality
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2023
Case Number
2754/2016
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim Prior to Trial
Outcome
Leave to amend particulars of claim granted.
Judges
Lever
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Judicial Discretion, Prejudice, Mala Fides, Cause of Action, Section 38 Constitution
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Judicial Discretion Prejudice Mala Fides Cause of Action Section 38 Constitution

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornelissen Incorporated

Applicant

Nama Khoi Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend its particulars of claim as set out in its notice of intention to amend.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments introduce a new cause of action or merely supplement the existing claim.
  3. 3 Whether the application to amend is mala fide or prejudicial to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the proposed amendments do not introduce a new cause of action but rather supplement the existing claim by adding alternative or additional grounds for authority of the respondent's representatives. The objections raised by the respondent regarding mala fides and prejudice were not substantiated; delay and prior assurances at pre-trial conference do not, in themselves, constitute mala fides. The respondent's objection based on prescription was not properly raised in terms of Rule 28(3) and was therefore not entertained. The court held that amendments should be granted unless mala fides or irremediable prejudice is shown, which was not the case here. The applicant was...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend particulars of claim granted.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend its particulars of claim as set out in its Notice of Intention to Amend, which bears the Registrar's date stamp of 3 December 2020.
  • The said amendment shall be effected within ten (10) days of this order being made.