Jacobs v Beacon Island Shareblock and Another (A258/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 3 (6 February 2019)

Jacobs v Beacon Island Shareblock and Another (A258/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 3 (6 February 2019)

The court held that the application brought before the court a quo was unnecessary and misconceived, as the contradiction between the first third party's plea and his reply to trial particulars did not justify the relief sought. The reply to trial particulars does not form part of the pleadings and cannot alter the pleaded case. The order directing amendment of pleadings was legally ineffectual, advisory in nature, and did not prescribe any consequences for non-compliance. It was not final, definitive of rights, nor did it dispose of any substantive issue, and thus was not appealable. The interests of justice did not require entertaining the appeal, and the appellant, having persisted...

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 3
Parties
Appellant: Juan A. Jacobs; Respondent: Beacon Island Shareblock; Respondent: Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2019
Case Number
A258/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Appeal struck from the roll with costs.
Judges
A.G. Binns-Ward, L.J. Bozalek, N.P. Boqwana
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Relief, Pleadings and Amendments, Share Blocks Control Act, Case Management, Appealability of Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interlocutory Relief Pleadings and Amendments Share Blocks Control Act Case Management Appealability of Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juan A. Jacobs

Appellant

Beacon Island Shareblock

Respondent

Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interlocutory order directing amendment of pleadings is appealable.
  2. 2 Whether the first third party's reply to trial particulars contradicted his pleaded defence.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo erred in granting a mandatory order to amend pleadings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application brought before the court a quo was unnecessary and misconceived, as the contradiction between the first third party's plea and his reply to trial particulars did not justify the relief sought. The reply to trial particulars does not form part of the pleadings and cannot alter the pleaded case. The order directing amendment of pleadings was legally ineffectual, advisory in nature, and did not prescribe any consequences for non-compliance. It was not final, definitive of rights, nor did it dispose of any substantive issue, and thus was not appealable. The interests of justice did not require entertaining the appeal, and the appellant, having persisted...

Court Disposition

Appeal struck from the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck from the roll with costs, including the costs of the application for leave to appeal.