D A v Marais and Others (2019/2776) [2020] ZAGPJHC 10 (7 February 2020)

D A v Marais and Others (2019/2776) [2020] ZAGPJHC 10 (7 February 2020)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim, while not a model of clarity, set out the facts forming the basis for her delictual claim against the defendants. The court held that the proposed amendment would not render the particulars excipiable as vague and embarrassing, nor would it prejudice the defendants. The court emphasized that amendments should be allowed unless mala fides or injustice is shown, neither of which was present. Accordingly, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend her particulars of claim, with no order as to costs.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 10
Parties
Plaintiff: D A; Defendant: Eugene Marais; Defendant: Jonathan Stephens; Defendant: Eugene Marais Attorneys; Respondent: Marais Stephens Attorneys
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 February 2020
Case Number
2019/2776
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim; no order as to costs.
Judges
Adams
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Duty of Care, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Delict Amendment of Pleadings Duty of Care Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Exception Procedure

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D A

Plaintiff

Eugene Marais

Defendant

Jonathan Stephens

Defendant

Eugene Marais Attorneys

Defendant

Marais Stephens Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendment to the particulars of claim would render the pleading excipiable as vague and embarrassing.
  2. 2 Whether the amendment would prejudice the defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend her particulars of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim, while not a model of clarity, set out the facts forming the basis for her delictual claim against the defendants. The court held that the proposed amendment would not render the particulars excipiable as vague and embarrassing, nor would it prejudice the defendants. The court emphasized that amendments should be allowed unless mala fides or injustice is shown, neither of which was present. Accordingly, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend her particulars of claim, with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The plaintiff is granted leave to amend her particulars of claim as set out in her notice of intention to amend dated 2 April 2019.
  • The plaintiff shall effect this amendment within ten days from the date of this order.