Creative Lens Multimedia CC v Segakweng and Another (11/39011) [2025] ZAGPJHC 221 (28 February 2025)

Creative Lens Multimedia CC v Segakweng and Another (11/39011) [2025] ZAGPJHC 221 (28 February 2025)

The court held that the issue of prescription is not common cause and should not be decided at the stage of considering an application to amend pleadings. The applicant should be allowed to amend its particulars of claim, and the respondent may raise prescription as a defence in due course. The court expressed displeasure at the applicant's delay in giving notice to amend following the substitution and joinder order, but determined that no order as to costs would be made as a result. The amendment is granted, and the parties may proceed with the action, with prescription to be determined if and when properly pleaded.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 221
Parties
Applicant: Creative Lens Multimedia CC; Respondent: Marriam Pamela Segakweng; Respondent: Segakweng Enterprises and Strategy Consulting (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2025
Case Number
11/39011
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Leave to amend particulars of claim granted; no order as to costs.
Judges
A Mitchell
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Prescription, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Joinder of Parties 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Creative Lens Multimedia CC

Applicant

Marriam Pamela Segakweng

Respondent

Segakweng Enterprises and Strategy Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend its particulars of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the claim against the second respondent has prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the issue of prescription should be determined at the amendment stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the issue of prescription is not common cause and should not be decided at the stage of considering an application to amend pleadings. The applicant should be allowed to amend its particulars of claim, and the respondent may raise prescription as a defence in due course. The court expressed displeasure at the applicant's delay in giving notice to amend following the substitution and joinder order, but determined that no order as to costs would be made as a result. The amendment is granted, and the parties may proceed with the action, with prescription to be determined if and when properly pleaded.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend particulars of claim granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend its particulars of claim.
  • There is no order as to costs.