Instant Life (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tshukudu (5512/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 448 (2 May 2024)

Instant Life (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tshukudu (5512/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 448 (2 May 2024)

The court found that the respondent's notice of amendment in terms of rule 28(7) was irregular and did not comply with the rules of court. The order by Skosana AJ did not grant leave to amend the particulars of claim, as the application for leave to amend was expressly dismissed. The respondent's interpretation of the order was incorrect, and the amendments proposed in the notice were not those previously considered by the court. The only proper procedure for amendment was to file a notice of intention to amend in terms of rule 28(1), subject to objection and court discretion. The purported joinder of the second and third applicants was also irregular, as no basis was laid for their...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 448
Parties
Applicant: Instant Life (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Guardrisk Life; Applicant: Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Mellicent Thandiwe Tshukudu
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 May 2024
Case Number
5512/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Irregular Step Under Rule 30(1)
Outcome
Application granted. Respondent's notice in terms of rule 28(7) set aside as irregular. Respondent ordered to file a proper notice of intention to amend within 15 days, failing which her claim is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Chabedi
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Irregular Proceedings, Rule 28, Rule 30
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Joinder of Parties Irregular Proceedings Rule 28 Rule 30

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Instant Life (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Guardrisk Life

Applicant

Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited

Applicant

Mellicent Thandiwe Tshukudu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Irregular Step Under Rule 30(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's notice of amendment in terms of rule 28(7) was validly filed without leave of court.
  2. 2 Whether the purported joinder of the second and third applicants was procedurally compliant.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to effect amendments to her particulars of claim after her application for leave to amend was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's notice of amendment in terms of rule 28(7) was irregular and did not comply with the rules of court. The order by Skosana AJ did not grant leave to amend the particulars of claim, as the application for leave to amend was expressly dismissed. The respondent's interpretation of the order was incorrect, and the amendments proposed in the notice were not those previously considered by the court. The only proper procedure for amendment was to file a notice of intention to amend in terms of rule 28(1), subject to objection and court discretion. The purported joinder of the second and third applicants was also irregular, as no basis was laid for their...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondent's notice in terms of rule 28(7) set aside as irregular. Respondent ordered to file a proper notice of intention to amend within 15 days, failing which her claim is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application in terms of rule 30(1) is granted.
  • The respondent's notice in terms of rule 28(7), including the notice to join the second and third applicants, is set aside as an irregular step.