Hoffman N.O. and Another v Livewell Devco 1 (Pty) Ltd (20317/2017) [2022] ZAWCHC 209 (28 October 2022)

Hoffman N.O. and Another v Livewell Devco 1 (Pty) Ltd (20317/2017) [2022] ZAWCHC 209 (28 October 2022)

The court found that the plaintiffs did not follow the correct procedure for joinder and amendment. The initial notices were merely notices of intention and not applications. The subsequent affidavits were filed without any accompanying notice, and the plaintiffs failed to comply with the directions of the case management judge and the agreed order requiring a formal application. The court distinguished between the procedure for amendment under rule 28, which may not require an affidavit, and joinder under rule 10, which is silent and thus requires compliance with rule 6(1). The court concluded that the plaintiffs' approach was irregular and that the relief sought was not properly before...

Citation
[2022] ZAWCHC 209
Parties
Plaintiff: Roger Coenraad Hoffman N.O.; Plaintiff: Dianne Liesa Hoffman N.O.; Defendant: Livewell Devco 1 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2022
Case Number
20317/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Application for Joinder and Amendment of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
The matter is struck from the roll with costs, including any reserved costs orders.
Judges
J Cloete
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Amendment of Pleadings, Unjust Enrichment, Procedural Irregularity
Civil Procedure Joinder of Parties Amendment of Pleadings Unjust Enrichment Procedural Irregularity

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Coenraad Hoffman N.O.

Plaintiff

Dianne Liesa Hoffman N.O.

Plaintiff

Livewell Devco 1 (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Application for Joinder and Amendment of Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the procedure adopted by the plaintiffs to join a party is irregular.
  2. 2 Whether the first plaintiff should be joined in his personal capacity as third plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their particulars of claim to introduce new alternative claims based on enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs did not follow the correct procedure for joinder and amendment. The initial notices were merely notices of intention and not applications. The subsequent affidavits were filed without any accompanying notice, and the plaintiffs failed to comply with the directions of the case management judge and the agreed order requiring a formal application. The court distinguished between the procedure for amendment under rule 28, which may not require an affidavit, and joinder under rule 10, which is silent and thus requires compliance with rule 6(1). The court concluded that the plaintiffs' approach was irregular and that the relief sought was not properly before...

Court Disposition

The matter is struck from the roll with costs, including any reserved costs orders.

Orders

  • The matter is struck from the roll with costs, including any reserved costs orders.