Miller NO and Others v Ramsammy (21/27354) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1104 (15 March 2023)

Miller NO and Others v Ramsammy (21/27354) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1104 (15 March 2023)

The court held that the applicants' proposed amendment to the notice of motion was neither excipiable nor prejudicial to the respondent. The amendment was sought as a precautionary measure in response to the respondent's assertion regarding the absence of an invoice, and did not alter the nature of the dispute or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1104
Parties
Applicant: Reuben Miller N.O; Applicant: Norman Klein N.O; Applicant: Vimbai Angela Tsopotsa N.O; Applicant: Refilwe Tlhabanyane N.O; Respondent: Jayson Desiga Ramsammy
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2023
Case Number
21/27354
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Motion
Outcome
Application for leave to amend granted; respondent ordered to pay costs.
Judges
A Friedman
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Prejudice in Amendment, Excipiable Pleading, Prescription, Uniform Rule 28
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Prejudice in Amendment Excipiable Pleading Prescription Uniform Rule 28

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reuben Miller N.O

Applicant

Norman Klein N.O

Applicant

Vimbai Angela Tsopotsa N.O

Applicant

Refilwe Tlhabanyane N.O

Applicant

Jayson Desiga Ramsammy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their notice of motion to introduce an alternative prayer for relief.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment is excipiable or would cause prejudice to the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' failure to address prescription in their founding affidavit is fatal to the amendment application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants' proposed amendment to the notice of motion was neither excipiable nor prejudicial to the respondent. The amendment was sought as a precautionary measure in response to the respondent's assertion regarding the absence of an invoice, and did not alter the nature of the dispute or disadvantage the respondent. The respondent's arguments regarding excipiability and prescription were found to be without merit, as the issue of the invoice was raised only in the answering affidavit and not anticipated by the applicants. The court found that any prejudice claimed by the respondent, such as the need to file further affidavits, was not the type of prejudice...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend granted; respondent ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The applicants are granted leave to amend their notice of motion in the terms stated in the Notice of Intention to Amend dated 8 February 2022 and delivered on 21 February 2022.
  • The respondent shall deliver a supplementary answering affidavit (if any) within 10 days of the date of this order.