Macingwane and Another v Bosasa Youth Development Centres Proprietary Limited and Others (17095/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 568 (24 May 2024)

Macingwane and Another v Bosasa Youth Development Centres Proprietary Limited and Others (17095/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 568 (24 May 2024)

The court held that the exception brought by the AGO parties is misconceived. It is established law that parties may be joined for convenience or possible interest, and in such cases, no cause of action need be pleaded against them. The AGO parties did not oppose their joinder nor object to the amendment of the particulars of claim. Their attempt to except to the pleading confuses the principles of joinder with those of pleading. The proper remedy for a party who objects to joinder is to bring an application for misjoinder, not to except to the particulars of claim. The exception is dismissed as it does not meet the requirements of Rule 23 and constitutes an abuse of process.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 568
Parties
Plaintiff: Sabelo Macingwane; Plaintiff: Turquoise Moon Proprietary Limited; Defendant: Bosasa Youth Development Centres Proprietary Limited (in liquidation); Defendant: Ralph Farrel Lutchman N.O.; Defendant: Cloete Murray N.O.; Defendant: Tania Oosthuizen N.O.; Defendant: Jared Michael Watson (Executor for the Estate Late Gavin Joseph Watson); Defendant: Ntsimbintle Holdings Pty Ltd; Defendant: Tshepo Harry Nonyane N.O.; Defendant: Ofentse Andrew Nong N.O.; Defendant: African Global Operations Proprietary Limited (in liquidation); Defendant: Milani Becker N.O.; Defendant: African Global Holdings Proprietary Limited; Defendant: Mela Womens Investment; Defendant: Nzuzo Investments Proprietary Limited; Defendant: Mpako Investments Proprietary Limited; Defendant: Johannes Gumede N.O.; Defendant: Themba Ishmael Mncwaba N.O.; Defendant: Carol Felicity Mkele N.O.; Defendant: Terence Anthony Perry N.O.; Defendant: Lulama Smuts Ngonyama; Defendant: Thundercats Investments 92
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2024
Case Number
17095/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim Following Joinder of Defendants; Consolidated Actions Considered Together.
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel where employed.
Judges
Fisher
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Exception Procedure, Cause of Action Pleading, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Joinder of Parties Exception Procedure Cause of Action Pleading Abuse of Process

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sabelo Macingwane

Plaintiff

Turquoise Moon Proprietary Limited

Plaintiff

Bosasa Youth Development Centres Proprietary Limited (in liquidation)

Defendant

Ralph Farrel Lutchman N.O.

Defendant

Cloete Murray N.O.

Defendant

Tania Oosthuizen N.O.

Defendant

Jared Michael Watson (Executor for the Estate Late Gavin Joseph Watson)

Defendant

Ntsimbintle Holdings Pty Ltd

Defendant

Tshepo Harry Nonyane N.O.

Defendant

Ofentse Andrew Nong N.O.

Defendant

African Global Operations Proprietary Limited (in liquidation)

Defendant

Milani Becker N.O.

Defendant

African Global Holdings Proprietary Limited

Defendant

Mela Womens Investment

Defendant

Nzuzo Investments Proprietary Limited

Defendant

Mpako Investments Proprietary Limited

Defendant

Johannes Gumede N.O.

Defendant

Themba Ishmael Mncwaba N.O.

Defendant

Carol Felicity Mkele N.O.

Defendant

Terence Anthony Perry N.O.

Defendant

Lulama Smuts Ngonyama

Defendant

Thundercats Investments 92

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim Following Joinder of Defendants; Consolidated Actions Considered Together.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the AGO parties joined as defendants.
  2. 2 Whether a party joined for convenience or possible interest must have a cause of action pleaded against them.
  3. 3 Whether the exception procedure is appropriate in the context of joinder for convenience or interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the exception brought by the AGO parties is misconceived. It is established law that parties may be joined for convenience or possible interest, and in such cases, no cause of action need be pleaded against them. The AGO parties did not oppose their joinder nor object to the amendment of the particulars of claim. Their attempt to except to the pleading confuses the principles of joinder with those of pleading. The proper remedy for a party who objects to joinder is to bring an application for misjoinder, not to except to the particulars of claim. The exception is dismissed as it does not meet the requirements of Rule 23 and constitutes an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel where employed.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded against the AGO parties on the scale as between attorney and client.