Maluti-A-Phofung Municipality v Prellex 192 CC t/a Prellex 192 Consulting Services (5186/07) [2009] ZAFSHC 95 (25 September 2009)

Maluti-A-Phofung Municipality v Prellex 192 CC t/a Prellex 192 Consulting Services (5186/07) [2009] ZAFSHC 95 (25 September 2009)

The applicant filed its objection to the amendment four days after the prescribed period, by which time the respondent had already amended the summons in accordance with the rules. Granting condonation would serve no useful purpose, as the summons had already been amended and the applicant did not seek an order varying or cancelling the amendment. The explanation for the delay was insufficient, and the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action. The applicant failed to show good cause for condonation, and there were no prospects of success. Accordingly, the application for condonation was dismissed.

Citation
[2009] ZAFSHC 95
Parties
Applicant: Maluti-A-Phofung Municipality; Respondent: Prellex 192 CC t/a Prellex 192 Consulting Services
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2009
Case Number
5186/07
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Opposed Application for Condonation of Late Objection to Amendment of Summons
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Judges
M.B. Molemela
Legal Topics
Condonation, Amendment of Pleadings, Rule 28, Default Judgment, Rescission of Judgment
Civil Procedure Condonation Amendment of Pleadings Rule 28 Default Judgment Rescission of Judgment

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

Parties

Maluti-A-Phofung Municipality

Applicant

Prellex 192 CC t/a Prellex 192 Consulting Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Opposed Application for Condonation of Late Objection to Amendment of Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the applicant's late filing of its objection to the respondent's notice of intention to amend the summons.
  2. 2 Whether the amendment effected by the respondent introduced a new cause of action requiring a fresh summons.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant filed its objection to the amendment four days after the prescribed period, by which time the respondent had already amended the summons in accordance with the rules. Granting condonation would serve no useful purpose, as the summons had already been amended and the applicant did not seek an order varying or cancelling the amendment. The explanation for the delay was insufficient, and the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action. The applicant failed to show good cause for condonation, and there were no prospects of success. Accordingly, the application for condonation was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.