Monokandilos v Generale Des Carriers Et Des Mines SA (11261/2001) [2010] ZAGPPHC 184 (5 November 2010)

Monokandilos v Generale Des Carriers Et Des Mines SA (11261/2001) [2010] ZAGPPHC 184 (5 November 2010)

The court held that the amendments to the particulars of claim did not introduce new causes of action but were merely fresh quantifications of the original claim. The parties had agreed that Greek law was applicable, and both causes of action arose in Greece. The court found that prescription is a matter of substantive law, and the lex causae (Greek law) applies. The court took judicial notice of the relevant provisions of the Greek Civil Code, which provide for a prescription period of either 5 or 20 years. Since the summons was issued within the applicable prescription period, the defendant's special plea on prescription failed. The court dismissed both special pleas with costs.

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 184
Parties
Plaintiff: Dimitrios Monokandilos; Defendant: Generale Des Carriers Et Des Mines SA
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 November 2010
Case Number
11261/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea (prescription and Amendment of Particulars of Claim)
Outcome
Defendant's special pleas are dismissed with costs.
Judges
HJ Fabricius
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Conflict of Laws, Defamation, Malicious Prosecution, Amendment of Particulars, Foreign Law Application
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Conflict of Laws Defamation Malicious Prosecution Amendment of Particulars Foreign Law Application

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dimitrios Monokandilos

Plaintiff

Generale Des Carriers Et Des Mines SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea (prescription and Amendment of Particulars of Claim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments to the particulars of claim introduced new causes of action or were merely fresh quantifications of the original claim.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim for damages resulting from defamation is prescribed under South African law or Greek law.
  3. 3 Whether the law of Greece (lex causae) or South African law (lex fori) applies to the issue of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the amendments to the particulars of claim did not introduce new causes of action but were merely fresh quantifications of the original claim. The parties had agreed that Greek law was applicable, and both causes of action arose in Greece. The court found that prescription is a matter of substantive law, and the lex causae (Greek law) applies. The court took judicial notice of the relevant provisions of the Greek Civil Code, which provide for a prescription period of either 5 or 20 years. Since the summons was issued within the applicable prescription period, the defendant's special plea on prescription failed. The court dismissed both special pleas with costs.

Court Disposition

Defendant's special pleas are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea regarding amendment of particulars of claim is dismissed.
  • The defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed.