Huisman and Another v Lakie and Others, In re: Huisman and Another v Lakie and Others (3248/10) [2012] ZAECGHC 71 (6 September 2012)

Huisman and Another v Lakie and Others, In re: Huisman and Another v Lakie and Others (3248/10) [2012] ZAECGHC 71 (6 September 2012)

The court found that the name of the second defendant was an amalgam of the second and third respondents, arising from the newspaper's representation. The summons was served on the respondents' attorneys, who appreciated their connection with the claim, satisfying the requirements for service on the true debtor under the Prescription Act. The amendment sought does not introduce new entities but corrects a misdescription. No prejudice or injustice to the respondents was established. The applicants are granted leave to amend the summons and particulars of claim, but must bear the wasted costs occasioned by the amendment and the opposition.

Citation
[2012] ZAECGHC 71
Parties
Applicant: Ivo Huisman; Applicant: Ivo Huisman & Associates; Respondent: Bruce Richard Lakie; Respondent: The Graaff-Reinet Advertiser (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Group Editors Co (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2012
Case Number
3248/10
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Amendment of Summons and Joinder of Parties
Outcome
Leave granted to amend summons and particulars of claim; applicants to pay wasted costs.
Judges
M Makaula
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Prescription Act, Misdescription of Parties, Estoppel
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Joinder of Parties Prescription Act Misdescription of Parties Estoppel

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivo Huisman

Applicant

Ivo Huisman & Associates

Applicant

Bruce Richard Lakie

Respondent

The Graaff-Reinet Advertiser (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Group Editors Co (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Amendment of Summons and Joinder of Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs may amend the summons to substitute the second defendant with the second and third respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the amendment would introduce new entities and affect the defence of prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are estopped from objecting to the amendment due to alleged misrepresentation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the name of the second defendant was an amalgam of the second and third respondents, arising from the newspaper's representation. The summons was served on the respondents' attorneys, who appreciated their connection with the claim, satisfying the requirements for service on the true debtor under the Prescription Act. The amendment sought does not introduce new entities but corrects a misdescription. No prejudice or injustice to the respondents was established. The applicants are granted leave to amend the summons and particulars of claim, but must bear the wasted costs occasioned by the amendment and the opposition.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to amend summons and particulars of claim; applicants to pay wasted costs.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the plaintiffs to amend their summons and particulars of claim in accordance with paragraph 1 of the notice of motion dated 27 July 2011 and issued on the same date.
  • The plaintiffs are to pay all the wasted costs occasioned by the amendment, including the costs occasioned by the defendants’ opposition.