MEC for Education, Mpumalanga v Kotze (17290/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 601 (25 August 2015)

MEC for Education, Mpumalanga v Kotze (17290/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 601 (25 August 2015)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with the order of 17 June 2014 and the provisions of Rule 28(6) and (7) by not effecting the amendment within the prescribed period after dismissal of its application for leave to appeal. The plaintiff's subsequent application for leave to amend was lodged outside the ten-day period required by Rule 28(4), and no substantive application for condonation was made on notice to the defendant. The court held that the application for leave to amend was prematurely before it and must be struck off. Both parties engaged in irregular steps by filing multiple applications to strike out, amounting to an abuse of court process. Accordingly, both...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 601
Parties
Plaintiff: MEC for Education, Mpumalanga; Defendant: Willem Johannes Paulus Kotze
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2015
Case Number
17290/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim and Applications to Strike Out
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for leave to amend particulars of claim struck off from the roll; both applications to strike out dismissed; each party to pay own costs.
Judges
Legodi
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Rule 28, Condonation, Exception to Particulars of Claim
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Rule 28 Condonation Exception to Particulars of Claim

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MEC for Education, Mpumalanga

Plaintiff

Willem Johannes Paulus Kotze

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim and Applications to Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's application for leave to amend its particulars of claim should be granted despite late filing and absence of condonation.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's and plaintiff's applications to strike out constitute irregular steps under the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff complied with the court order and Rule 28 in seeking amendment of its particulars of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with the order of 17 June 2014 and the provisions of Rule 28(6) and (7) by not effecting the amendment within the prescribed period after dismissal of its application for leave to appeal. The plaintiff's subsequent application for leave to amend was lodged outside the ten-day period required by Rule 28(4), and no substantive application for condonation was made on notice to the defendant. The court held that the application for leave to amend was prematurely before it and must be struck off. Both parties engaged in irregular steps by filing multiple applications to strike out, amounting to an abuse of court process. Accordingly, both...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for leave to amend particulars of claim struck off from the roll; both applications to strike out dismissed; each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application for leave to amend its particulars of claim is struck off from the roll.
  • The plaintiff's and the defendant's applications to strike out are dismissed.