M.S.G v Savvidou and Another (2020/34451) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1800 (24 October 2023)

M.S.G v Savvidou and Another (2020/34451) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1800 (24 October 2023)

The court found that the applicant's proposed amendment was bona fide and necessary to ventilate the real issues between the parties, including claims for loss of support in his representative capacity. Although the applicant had not yet quantified damages in detail, the separation of liability and quantum under rule 33(4) was permissible, and the respondent would not suffer prejudice that could not be compensated by costs. The amendment would facilitate the proper resolution of the dispute and ensure justice between the parties. The court exercised its discretion to grant leave to amend, finding no substantive injustice or prejudice to the respondent.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1800
Parties
Applicant: M[...] S[...] G[...]; Respondent: Dr Athinoula Savvidou; Respondent: Dr Lesley Mesaba Maluleke
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2023
Case Number
2020/34451
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim Prior to Trial
Outcome
Leave to amend the applicant's particulars of claim is granted. The first respondent is ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Botsi-Thulare
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Rule 28 Uniform Rules, Loss of Support, Quantum of Damages, Prejudice in Amendment
Civil Procedure Delict Amendment of Pleadings Rule 28 Uniform Rules Loss of Support Quantum of Damages Prejudice in Amendment

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M[...] S[...] G[...]

Applicant

Dr Athinoula Savvidou

Respondent

Dr Lesley Mesaba Maluleke

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the particulars of claim under rule 28(1).
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment would cause prejudice or injustice to the first respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's amended particulars of claim comply with rule 18(10) regarding the quantification of damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's proposed amendment was bona fide and necessary to ventilate the real issues between the parties, including claims for loss of support in his representative capacity. Although the applicant had not yet quantified damages in detail, the separation of liability and quantum under rule 33(4) was permissible, and the respondent would not suffer prejudice that could not be compensated by costs. The amendment would facilitate the proper resolution of the dispute and ensure justice between the parties. The court exercised its discretion to grant leave to amend, finding no substantive injustice or prejudice to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend the applicant's particulars of claim is granted. The first respondent is ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Leave to amend the applicant’s particulars of claim as set out in the Notice in terms of Rule 28(1) dated 23 November 2022 is granted.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay costs on the scale as between attorney and client, including the costs of two counsel.