Lisele v Minister of Police (2084/2014) [2018] ZAFSHC 13 (9 March 2018)

Lisele v Minister of Police (2084/2014) [2018] ZAFSHC 13 (9 March 2018)

The Court found that the Defendant's revival and setting down of the exception more than three years after its filing was opportunistic and did not regularise the proceedings. The procedural confusion regarding the Plaintiff's amendments and the Defendant's objections necessitated a final order to regularise the process. The Court held that the exception should be struck from the roll, and the Plaintiff should be ordered to apply for leave to amend his Particulars of Claim in accordance with the second Notice of Intention to Amend, with further proceedings to be conducted under Rule 28. The Defendant's Rule 30A notice may be determined together with the amendment application if necessary.

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 13
Parties
Plaintiff: Sabata Dominic Lisele; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2018
Case Number
2084/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Exception struck from the roll with costs; Plaintiff ordered to apply for leave to amend Particulars of Claim within ten days.
Judges
PJ Loubser
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Amendment of Pleadings, Road Accident Fund Act, Apportionment of Damages Act
Civil Procedure Exception to Particulars of Claim Amendment of Pleadings Road Accident Fund Act Apportionment of Damages Act

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sabata Dominic Lisele

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim; Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim disclose a cause of action against the Defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's amendments to the Particulars of Claim were properly effected and final.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's exception remains valid in light of procedural developments.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Defendant's revival and setting down of the exception more than three years after its filing was opportunistic and did not regularise the proceedings. The procedural confusion regarding the Plaintiff's amendments and the Defendant's objections necessitated a final order to regularise the process. The Court held that the exception should be struck from the roll, and the Plaintiff should be ordered to apply for leave to amend his Particulars of Claim in accordance with the second Notice of Intention to Amend, with further proceedings to be conducted under Rule 28. The Defendant's Rule 30A notice may be determined together with the amendment application if necessary.

Court Disposition

Exception struck from the roll with costs; Plaintiff ordered to apply for leave to amend Particulars of Claim within ten days.

Orders

  • The exception is struck from the roll with costs.
  • The Plaintiff is ordered to lodge an application for leave to amend his Particulars of Claim in accordance with his second Notice of Intention to Amend and in response to the Defendant's objection, within ten days of this order.