Matabane v Minister of Police (1892/2014) [2016] ZAECGHC 117 (31 October 2016)

Matabane v Minister of Police (1892/2014) [2016] ZAECGHC 117 (31 October 2016)

The applicant is barred by a previous court order from amending his particulars of claim without first applying for the upliftment of the bar. He failed to do so and persisted in filing amendments despite successive rule 30 applications and clear judicial directions. The application is devoid of merit and constitutes an abuse of process. The applicant's attorney, as the driving force behind the application, acted unreasonably and in bad faith, warranting a costs order de bonis propriis on an attorney and client scale. The applicant should not bear the consequences of his attorney's conduct.

Citation
[2016] ZAECGHC 117
Parties
Applicant: Teboho Michael Matabane; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2016
Case Number
1892/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Amendment and Condonation Following Exception and Barring Order
Outcome
Application dismissed. Costs awarded against applicant's attorney de bonis propriis on attorney and client scale.
Judges
C Plasket
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Condonation, Exception to Pleadings, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Condonation Exception to Pleadings Costs De Bonis Propriis

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teboho Michael Matabane

Applicant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Amendment and Condonation Following Exception and Barring Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant may amend his particulars of claim after being barred by a previous court order.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the late application to amend.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the applicant's attorney warrants a costs order de bonis propriis.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is barred by a previous court order from amending his particulars of claim without first applying for the upliftment of the bar. He failed to do so and persisted in filing amendments despite successive rule 30 applications and clear judicial directions. The application is devoid of merit and constitutes an abuse of process. The applicant's attorney, as the driving force behind the application, acted unreasonably and in bad faith, warranting a costs order de bonis propriis on an attorney and client scale. The applicant should not bear the consequences of his attorney's conduct.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Costs awarded against applicant's attorney de bonis propriis on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant's attorney is ordered to pay the respondent's costs de bonis propriis on an attorney and client scale.