Jeewan v Transnet Ltd and Another (6258/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 165 (29 March 2016)

Jeewan v Transnet Ltd and Another (6258/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 165 (29 March 2016)

The court found that the proposed amendments relating to the existence of a fiduciary duty between the plaintiff and the second defendant were bad in law, as no contractual or legal relationship existed to give rise to such a duty. The second defendant was retained by the first defendant to conduct a forensic investigation and owed its primary duty to the first defendant, not the plaintiff. The plaintiff's cooperation with the investigation did not establish a fiduciary relationship. The exception to the amendment on this ground was upheld. Regarding legitimate expectation, the court held that while the second defendant must act lawfully and in accordance with its code of conduct, a...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 165
Parties
Applicant: Sanoj Jeewan; Respondent: Transnet Ltd; Respondent: Ernst & Young
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2016
Case Number
6258/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim Under Rule 28; Exceptions Raised by Second Defendant
Outcome
The exceptions to the amendments under grounds 3 and 4 are upheld and the plaintiff's application for leave to amend on these grounds is refused and dismissed. The exceptions under grounds 1, 2, 5, and 6 are dismissed and the plaintiff's application for leave to amend on these grounds is granted. Costs are to be...
Judges
Olivier
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Exceptions to Pleadings, Fiduciary Duty, Legitimate Expectation, Quantum of Damages, Disciplinary Procedure
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Amendment of Pleadings Exceptions to Pleadings Fiduciary Duty Legitimate Expectation Quantum of Damages Disciplinary Procedure

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanoj Jeewan

Applicant

Transnet Ltd

Respondent

Ernst & Young

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim Under Rule 28; Exceptions Raised by Second Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's proposed amendments to the particulars of claim are excipiable and should be refused.
  2. 2 Whether a fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and the second defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff had a legitimate expectation regarding the conduct of the second defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the proposed amendments relating to the existence of a fiduciary duty between the plaintiff and the second defendant were bad in law, as no contractual or legal relationship existed to give rise to such a duty. The second defendant was retained by the first defendant to conduct a forensic investigation and owed its primary duty to the first defendant, not the plaintiff. The plaintiff's cooperation with the investigation did not establish a fiduciary relationship. The exception to the amendment on this ground was upheld. Regarding legitimate expectation, the court held that while the second defendant must act lawfully and in accordance with its code of conduct, a...

Court Disposition

The exceptions to the amendments under grounds 3 and 4 are upheld and the plaintiff's application for leave to amend on these grounds is refused and dismissed. The exceptions under grounds 1, 2, 5, and 6 are dismissed and the plaintiff's application for leave to amend on these grounds is granted. Costs are to be...

Orders

  • The second defendant's exception to the amendments under grounds 3 and 4 are upheld. The plaintiff's application for leave to amend its particulars of claim in respect of the amendments challenged on these grounds is refused and dismissed.
  • The second defendant's exception to the amendments under grounds 1, 2, 5 and 6 are dismissed. The plaintiff's application for leave to amend its particulars of claim in respect of the amendments challenged on these grounds is granted.