Gravato N.O and Others v De Wet (14174/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1282 (11 August 2017)

Gravato N.O and Others v De Wet (14174/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1282 (11 August 2017)

The court exercised its discretion to grant the amendment, finding that the defendant would not be prejudiced as he retains the opportunity to amend his plea and raise a special plea of prescription. The amendment reconciles the particulars of claim with the defendant's plea, and the real issues have already been ventilated through evidence and cross-examination. Delay in seeking the amendment is not a sufficient reason for refusal, and the interests of justice require that all material facts be placed before the court. Costs are awarded against the defendant as the unsuccessful party in opposing the amendment.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1282
Parties
Plaintiff: Victor Muel Ferreira Gravato N.O.; Plaintiff: Jacolien Frieda Janse Van Rensburg N.O.; Plaintiff: Jayayant Daji Pema N.O.; Defendant: Marlize De Wet
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 August 2017
Case Number
14174/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Leave to amend is granted to the plaintiffs; the defendant is ordered to pay the costs of opposing the amendment.
Judges
Mavundla
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Prescription, Court Discretion on Amendments
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Prescription Court Discretion on Amendments

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Muel Ferreira Gravato N.O.

Plaintiff

Jacolien Frieda Janse Van Rensburg N.O.

Plaintiff

Jayayant Daji Pema N.O.

Plaintiff

Marlize De Wet

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend their particulars of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment introduces a new cause of action that has prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant would be prejudiced by the late amendment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to grant the amendment, finding that the defendant would not be prejudiced as he retains the opportunity to amend his plea and raise a special plea of prescription. The amendment reconciles the particulars of claim with the defendant's plea, and the real issues have already been ventilated through evidence and cross-examination. Delay in seeking the amendment is not a sufficient reason for refusal, and the interests of justice require that all material facts be placed before the court. Costs are awarded against the defendant as the unsuccessful party in opposing the amendment.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend is granted to the plaintiffs; the defendant is ordered to pay the costs of opposing the amendment.

Orders

  • Leave to amend is granted to the plaintiffs.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the opposition to the amendment.