Kgobis vs ABSA Bank Ltd and Another (41715/2015) [2022] ZAGPJHC 347 (17 May 2022)

Kgobis vs ABSA Bank Ltd and Another (41715/2015) [2022] ZAGPJHC 347 (17 May 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff's proposed amendment to the particulars of claim was vague, embarrassing, and excipiable. The amendment failed to set out a clear and concise statement of material facts as required by Rule 18(4), did not clarify whether the claim was in contract or delict, and did not address the special pleas of misjoinder and prescription. The plaintiff did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking the amendment, nor did he demonstrate a bona fide triable issue. The court exercised its discretion against allowing the amendment, concluding that the proposed changes would not improve the pleadings but rather introduce further confusion and...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 347
Parties
Applicant: Mashegoana Godfrey Kgobisi; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited; Respondent: Cecil Patrick Shain Lament
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Case Number
41715/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim Under Rule 28(4)
Outcome
Application to amend the particulars of claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
MAKUME
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Vicarious Liability, Misjoinder, Prescription, Vagueness and Embarrassment, Duty of Care
Civil Procedure Delict Amendment of Pleadings Vicarious Liability Misjoinder Prescription Vagueness and Embarrassment Duty of Care

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashegoana Godfrey Kgobisi

Applicant

ABSA Bank Limited

Respondent

Cecil Patrick Shain Lament

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim Under Rule 28(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's proposed amendment to the particulars of claim should be allowed under Rule 28(4).
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment renders the pleading excipiable due to vagueness and embarrassment.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has established a triable issue or bona fide basis for the amendment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's proposed amendment to the particulars of claim was vague, embarrassing, and excipiable. The amendment failed to set out a clear and concise statement of material facts as required by Rule 18(4), did not clarify whether the claim was in contract or delict, and did not address the special pleas of misjoinder and prescription. The plaintiff did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking the amendment, nor did he demonstrate a bona fide triable issue. The court exercised its discretion against allowing the amendment, concluding that the proposed changes would not improve the pleadings but rather introduce further confusion and...

Court Disposition

Application to amend the particulars of claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to amend the Plaintiff’s Particulars of Claim is dismissed.
  • The Applicant/Plaintiff is ordered to pay the Respondent/first Defendant taxed party and party costs, including costs of counsel.