Honeth N.O and Another v Matsapa Trading 778 CC (577/2014) [2019] ZANCHC 25 (17 May 2019)

Honeth N.O and Another v Matsapa Trading 778 CC (577/2014) [2019] ZANCHC 25 (17 May 2019)

The court held that the withdrawal of the admission by the defendant was sufficiently explained and not prejudicial, given the early stage of proceedings and the alignment of the plea with the real issues in dispute. However, the proposed amendments seeking to treat contract terms as pro non scripto or to admit extrinsic evidence while the contract stands unrectified would violate the parol evidence rule and render the plea excipiable. Only the amendment withdrawing the admission was allowed; amendments seeking to alter the contract terms without rectification were refused. Costs were awarded against the applicant.

Citation
[2019] ZANCHC 25
Parties
Plaintiff: Bernt Robert Honeth N.O; Plaintiff: Elizabeth Honeth N.O; Defendant: Matsapa Trading 778 CC
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2019
Case Number
577/2014
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Application for Amendment to Plea Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for amendment partly granted and partly refused; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Williams
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Parol Evidence Rule, Rectification of Contract, Sale of Immovable Property, Value Added Tax
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Amendment of Pleadings Parol Evidence Rule Rectification of Contract Sale of Immovable Property Value Added Tax

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernt Robert Honeth N.O

Plaintiff

Elizabeth Honeth N.O

Plaintiff

Matsapa Trading 778 CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Application for Amendment to Plea Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant may amend its plea to withdraw an admission regarding the written agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments violate the parol evidence rule by seeking to treat certain contract terms as pro non scripto or to admit extrinsic evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to rectification of the written agreement to reflect the parties' true intention regarding VAT liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the withdrawal of the admission by the defendant was sufficiently explained and not prejudicial, given the early stage of proceedings and the alignment of the plea with the real issues in dispute. However, the proposed amendments seeking to treat contract terms as pro non scripto or to admit extrinsic evidence while the contract stands unrectified would violate the parol evidence rule and render the plea excipiable. Only the amendment withdrawing the admission was allowed; amendments seeking to alter the contract terms without rectification were refused. Costs were awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for amendment partly granted and partly refused; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • Save for the amendments contained in paragraphs 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of the Notice of Intention to Amend, which are not allowed, the proposed amendments are granted.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.