Morabe v EP Sefatsa Attorneys (2018/40287) [2025] ZAGPJHC 81 (28 January 2025)

Morabe v EP Sefatsa Attorneys (2018/40287) [2025] ZAGPJHC 81 (28 January 2025)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay in filing her application for leave to amend, as required by the rules and established case law. The explanation offered was incomplete, did not cover the entire period of delay, and was not scrupulously accurate. The plaintiff did not act with reasonable promptitude and failed to inform the defendant or the court of her inability to comply with the deadline. The court also found that the plaintiff did not adequately address or rebut the prejudice articulated by the defendant, who was deprived of the opportunity to interrogate the issue of willful prevention and prepare its defence. The...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 81
Parties
Plaintiff: Morabe: Mateboho Precious; Defendant: EP Sefatsa Attorneys
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 January 2025
Case Number
2018/40287
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Interlocutory Application for Condonation and Amendment in Professional Negligence Action
Outcome
Application for condonation and amendment dismissed with costs.
Judges
JW Scholtz
Legal Topics
Condonation, Amendment of Pleadings, Professional Negligence, Prescription Act, Breach of Mandate
Civil Procedure Delict Condonation Amendment of Pleadings Professional Negligence Prescription Act Breach of Mandate

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morabe: Mateboho Precious

Plaintiff

EP Sefatsa Attorneys

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Interlocutory Application for Condonation and Amendment in Professional Negligence Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted condonation for the late filing of her application for leave to amend her replication.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend her replication to plead willful prevention under section 12(2) of the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant will suffer prejudice if the amendment is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay in filing her application for leave to amend, as required by the rules and established case law. The explanation offered was incomplete, did not cover the entire period of delay, and was not scrupulously accurate. The plaintiff did not act with reasonable promptitude and failed to inform the defendant or the court of her inability to comply with the deadline. The court also found that the plaintiff did not adequately address or rebut the prejudice articulated by the defendant, who was deprived of the opportunity to interrogate the issue of willful prevention and prepare its defence. The...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and amendment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation and hence the application for amendment are dismissed with costs, such costs to be taxed on scale B.