Damon v Minister of Police (308/2015) [2020] ZANCHC 41 (25 June 2020)

Damon v Minister of Police (308/2015) [2020] ZANCHC 41 (25 June 2020)

The plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements for amendment of pleadings as set out in rule 28 of the Uniform Rules of Court. Specifically, after the defendant objected to the proposed amendment, the plaintiff did not bring an application for leave to amend within the required 10 days, nor did he seek condonation for non-compliance under rule 27(3). The court found that, in the absence of compliance with the rules or an application for condonation, it was not appropriate to grant the amendment. Accordingly, the matter was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2020] ZANCHC 41
Parties
Plaintiff: Martin Alistair Damon; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2020
Case Number
308/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Ruling on Application to Amend Particulars of Claim Before Judgment
Outcome
The matter is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Dauds AJ
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 28, Condonation for Non Compliance
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Uniform Rules of Court Rule 28 Condonation for Non Compliance

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

Martin Alistair Damon

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Ruling on Application to Amend Particulars of Claim Before Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to amend his particulars of claim after trial but before judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff complied with the procedural requirements for amendment under rule 28 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the court should condone the plaintiff's non-compliance with rule 28(4) and allow the amendment.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements for amendment of pleadings as set out in rule 28 of the Uniform Rules of Court. Specifically, after the defendant objected to the proposed amendment, the plaintiff did not bring an application for leave to amend within the required 10 days, nor did he seek condonation for non-compliance under rule 27(3). The court found that, in the absence of compliance with the rules or an application for condonation, it was not appropriate to grant the amendment. Accordingly, the matter was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

The matter is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The matter is dismissed with costs.