Hoogenboezem v Amalgameerde Mikroleners van Suid-Afrika (Edms) BPK (38432/2006) [2010] ZAGPPHC 207 (2 December 2010)

Hoogenboezem v Amalgameerde Mikroleners van Suid-Afrika (Edms) BPK (38432/2006) [2010] ZAGPPHC 207 (2 December 2010)

The court found that the defendant's proposed amendment was not a withdrawal of an admission but a correction to ensure that the true dispute was presented. The court held that the plaintiff had only pleaded what it considered relevant terms of the contract, implying that other terms existed which were not before the court. The amendment would not cause injustice to the plaintiff, who was entitled to oppose the application. After considering the proposed amendment and the portions to be struck out as indicated by the defendant's counsel, the court was satisfied that the remaining amendment should be granted. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application and any wasted...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 207
Parties
Plaintiff: A.P. Hoogenboezem; Defendant: Amalgameerde Mikroleners van Suid-Afrika (Edms) BPK
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2010
Case Number
38432/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Application for Amendment of Plea
Outcome
The defendant's application to amend its plea was granted, except for paragraph 3.5 and the second sentence of paragraph 3.8 of the proposed amendment. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application and any wasted costs caused by the amendment.
Judges
P.Z. Ebersohn
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Costs Order, Contractual Terms, Recognition and Withdrawal of Admissions
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Costs Order Contractual Terms Recognition and Withdrawal of Admissions

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.P. Hoogenboezem

Plaintiff

Amalgameerde Mikroleners van Suid-Afrika (Edms) BPK

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Application for Amendment of Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be permitted to amend its plea to correct an admission that does not reflect its true defence.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment would cause injustice to the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is bound by its previous admission in the plea.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's proposed amendment was not a withdrawal of an admission but a correction to ensure that the true dispute was presented. The court held that the plaintiff had only pleaded what it considered relevant terms of the contract, implying that other terms existed which were not before the court. The amendment would not cause injustice to the plaintiff, who was entitled to oppose the application. After considering the proposed amendment and the portions to be struck out as indicated by the defendant's counsel, the court was satisfied that the remaining amendment should be granted. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application and any wasted...

Court Disposition

The defendant's application to amend its plea was granted, except for paragraph 3.5 and the second sentence of paragraph 3.8 of the proposed amendment. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application and any wasted costs caused by the amendment.

Orders

  • The defendant's application to amend its plea as set out in the notice of intention to amend is granted, except for paragraph 3.5 and the second sentence of paragraph 3.8 thereof.
  • The defendant must serve and file the replacement pages within 10 court days of the granting of this order.