E.S v J.H.C.S (2022/17221) [2025] ZAGPJHC 275 (13 March 2025)

E.S v J.H.C.S (2022/17221) [2025] ZAGPJHC 275 (13 March 2025)

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in seeking to amend her particulars of claim, and did not demonstrate good cause for the removal of the bar. The omission of the proposed clause in the deed of settlement was not a patent omission attributable to the court, and thus rule 42(1)(b) was not applicable. The applicant's case lacked an arguable foundation, and her application for removal of the notice of bar and leave to amend was dismissed. As the applicant was barred from amending her particulars of claim, there was no valid pleading supporting her claim, and the respondent was entitled to absolution from the instance. Costs were awarded to the...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 275
Parties
Applicant: E[...] S[...]; Respondent: J[...] H[...] C[...] S[...]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2025
Case Number
2022/17221
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Removal of Bar and Leave to Amend; Application for Absolution From the Instance
Outcome
Application for removal of notice of bar and leave to amend dismissed; absolution from the instance granted in favour of the respondent; costs awarded to the respondent.
Judges
A Mitchell
Legal Topics
Removal of Bar, Leave to Amend, Variation of Court Order, Divorce Settlement, Absolution From Instance
Civil Procedure Family and Children Removal of Bar Leave to Amend Variation of Court Order Divorce Settlement Absolution From Instance

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E[...] S[...]

Applicant

J[...] H[...] C[...] S[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Removal of Bar and Leave to Amend; Application for Absolution From the Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice of bar delivered by the respondent should be uplifted to allow the applicant to amend her particulars of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for the removal of the bar under rule 27.
  3. 3 Whether the omission in the deed of settlement can be remedied under rule 42(1)(b) as a patent error or omission attributable to the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in seeking to amend her particulars of claim, and did not demonstrate good cause for the removal of the bar. The omission of the proposed clause in the deed of settlement was not a patent omission attributable to the court, and thus rule 42(1)(b) was not applicable. The applicant's case lacked an arguable foundation, and her application for removal of the notice of bar and leave to amend was dismissed. As the applicant was barred from amending her particulars of claim, there was no valid pleading supporting her claim, and the respondent was entitled to absolution from the instance. Costs were awarded to the...

Court Disposition

Application for removal of notice of bar and leave to amend dismissed; absolution from the instance granted in favour of the respondent; costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for removal of the notice of bar and for leave to amend is dismissed.
  • Absolution from the instance is granted in favour of the respondent in respect of the action instituted under case number 2022/17221.