Keulder v Van Heerden t/a De Wet Reitz Attorneys (JS374/2014) [2015] ZALCJHB 213 (15 July 2015)

Keulder v Van Heerden t/a De Wet Reitz Attorneys (JS374/2014) [2015] ZALCJHB 213 (15 July 2015)

The court found that the delay in filing the statement of claim was attributable to administrative inefficiency in allocating a case number, not to any fault of the applicant. The applicant had demonstrated an intention to comply with time limits and had filed the statement within the prescribed period, albeit without a case number. The respondent's objections to condonation and amendment were without merit, as the CCMA had already granted condonation for the late referral and the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but clarified the applicant's claim. The respondent failed to show any prejudice from the amendment. Regarding the striking out application, the court held that...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 213
Parties
Applicant: Nicoleen Yolandie Keulder; Respondent: CW Van Heerden t/a De Wet Reitz Attorneys
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 July 2015
Case Number
JS374/2014
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application Hearing and Determination of Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's statement of claim is granted; the application to amend the statement is granted; specified paragraphs and annexures in the respondent's answering affidavit are struck out; no order as to costs.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Condonation, Amendment of Pleadings, Privileged Evidence, Striking Out Affidavit, Procedural Fairness, Retrenchment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Amendment of Pleadings Privileged Evidence Striking Out Affidavit Procedural Fairness Retrenchment

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

Nicoleen Yolandie Keulder

Applicant

CW Van Heerden t/a De Wet Reitz Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application Hearing and Determination of Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the applicant's statement of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be permitted to amend her statement of claim.
  3. 3 Whether certain paragraphs and annexures in the respondent's answering affidavit should be struck out as privileged or irrelevant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in filing the statement of claim was attributable to administrative inefficiency in allocating a case number, not to any fault of the applicant. The applicant had demonstrated an intention to comply with time limits and had filed the statement within the prescribed period, albeit without a case number. The respondent's objections to condonation and amendment were without merit, as the CCMA had already granted condonation for the late referral and the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but clarified the applicant's claim. The respondent failed to show any prejudice from the amendment. Regarding the striking out application, the court held that...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's statement of claim is granted; the application to amend the statement is granted; specified paragraphs and annexures in the respondent's answering affidavit are struck out; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The late filing of the applicant's statement of case is condoned.
  • The application to amend the statement is granted.