Kwazikwakhe Community Projects (NPC) v Waste Group Projects (Pty) Ltd (43238/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 341 (17 August 2020)

Kwazikwakhe Community Projects (NPC) v Waste Group Projects (Pty) Ltd (43238/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 341 (17 August 2020)

The court found that the respondent's amended pages were served only one day late and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice resulting from this minor delay. The applicant's sweeping statements regarding prejudice were unsupported by factual evidence. The court held that non-compliance with procedural rules does not automatically result in prejudice unless substantiated. Furthermore, the applicant failed to comply with rule 30 by not giving notice to the respondent to remove the cause of complaint before launching the application, which was a more serious procedural defect. The issue regarding the attestation clause in the answering affidavit was dismissed as...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 341
Parties
Applicant: Kwazikwakhe Community Projects (NPC); Respondent: Waste Group Projects (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 August 2020
Case Number
43238/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Amended Particulars of Claim Under Rule 28
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Vuma
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Irregular Step, Prejudice, Commissioners of Oaths Compliance, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Irregular Step Prejudice Commissioners of Oaths Compliance Costs Order

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwazikwakhe Community Projects (NPC)

Applicant

Waste Group Projects (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Amended Particulars of Claim Under Rule 28

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's notice in terms of rule 28 served on 15 August 2019 failed to comply with rule 28(2) of the uniform rules.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's amended pages served on 16 September 2019 were served out of time.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant suffered prejudice as a result of the late service of the respondent's amended pages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's amended pages were served only one day late and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice resulting from this minor delay. The applicant's sweeping statements regarding prejudice were unsupported by factual evidence. The court held that non-compliance with procedural rules does not automatically result in prejudice unless substantiated. Furthermore, the applicant failed to comply with rule 30 by not giving notice to the respondent to remove the cause of complaint before launching the application, which was a more serious procedural defect. The issue regarding the attestation clause in the answering affidavit was dismissed as...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.