Firstrand Bank Limited v Coetzee and Another (82452/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 554 (19 August 2021)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Coetzee and Another (82452/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 554 (19 August 2021)

The court held that the intended amendment, which alleges that the applicant was represented by a duly authorised employee in concluding the loan agreement, is sufficient to enable the respondents to plead. The omission of the specific name and capacity of the representative does not amount to vagueness or embarrassment and does not prejudice the respondents. The particulars of claim, as amended, comply with Rule 18(6) for the purposes of pleading, and any further evidentiary details regarding the representative may be established at trial. The respondents are therefore able to plead to the amended particulars, and the interests of justice require that the amendment be allowed.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 554
Parties
Applicant: Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Louis Johannes Coetzee; Respondent: Gerbrechta Maria Adriana Coetzee
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2021
Case Number
82452/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim Under Rule 28(4)
Outcome
Application for leave to amend granted; respondents ordered to pay costs.
Judges
Nochumsohn
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Rule 18 Compliance, Amendment of Particulars, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Pleading Requirements Rule 18 Compliance Amendment of Particulars 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Firstrand Bank Limited

Applicant

Louis Johannes Coetzee

Respondent

Gerbrechta Maria Adriana Coetzee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim Under Rule 28(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the intended amendment to the particulars of claim cures the defect identified by the exception under Rule 18(6).
  2. 2 Whether the failure to identify the representative of the applicant in the loan agreement is fatal to the applicant's claim.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are able to plead to the amended particulars of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the intended amendment, which alleges that the applicant was represented by a duly authorised employee in concluding the loan agreement, is sufficient to enable the respondents to plead. The omission of the specific name and capacity of the representative does not amount to vagueness or embarrassment and does not prejudice the respondents. The particulars of claim, as amended, comply with Rule 18(6) for the purposes of pleading, and any further evidentiary details regarding the representative may be established at trial. The respondents are therefore able to plead to the amended particulars, and the interests of justice require that the amendment be allowed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend granted; respondents ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend the particulars of claim in accordance with the Notice of Intention to Amend dated 17 February 2021.
  • Such amendment must be effected within ten days from date of service of this order.