Muller and Others v Gomes and Another (8699/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 361 (18 May 2021)

Muller and Others v Gomes and Another (8699/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 361 (18 May 2021)

The court found that the respondents' objections to the proposed amendments were procedurally and substantively defective. The notice of objection in terms of Rule 28(3) failed to comply with the requirement of being clear and concise, as it relied on oblique references to other documents and did not specify the grounds of objection. The respondents' procedural complaints regarding time periods and Rule 30 were dismissed, as they did not follow the prescribed steps and instead took further steps in the proceedings. Upon a purposive reading of the particulars of claim and the proposed amendments, the court held that the applicants had pleaded sufficient particularity to enable the...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 361
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Zacharias Human Muller N.O.; Applicant: Aviwe Ntandazo Ndyamara N.O.; Applicant: Mantla Professor Madlala N.O.; Applicant: Nicholas Timkoe N.O.; Respondent: Domingos Francisco Antonio Gomes; Respondent: Maria Caetano Da Crus Gomes
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2021
Case Number
8699/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim; Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application for leave to amend particulars of claim granted; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Insolvency Act Section 26, Insolvency Act Section 31, Actio Pauliana, Fraudulent Disposition, Liquidation Proceedings
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Amendment of Pleadings Insolvency Act Section 26 Insolvency Act Section 31 Actio Pauliana Fraudulent Disposition Liquidation Proceedings

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Zacharias Human Muller N.O.

Applicant

Aviwe Ntandazo Ndyamara N.O.

Applicant

Mantla Professor Madlala N.O.

Applicant

Nicholas Timkoe N.O.

Applicant

Domingos Francisco Antonio Gomes

Respondent

Maria Caetano Da Crus Gomes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim; Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their particulars of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' objections to the proposed amendments comply with Rule 28(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim, as amended, provide sufficient particularity to enable the respondents to plead.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' objections to the proposed amendments were procedurally and substantively defective. The notice of objection in terms of Rule 28(3) failed to comply with the requirement of being clear and concise, as it relied on oblique references to other documents and did not specify the grounds of objection. The respondents' procedural complaints regarding time periods and Rule 30 were dismissed, as they did not follow the prescribed steps and instead took further steps in the proceedings. Upon a purposive reading of the particulars of claim and the proposed amendments, the court held that the applicants had pleaded sufficient particularity to enable the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend particulars of claim granted; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' particulars of claim are to be amended in terms of the plaintiffs' Notice of Amendment dated 30 June 2020 and annexed hereto marked NOA1-NOA18.
  • The plaintiffs are directed to deliver the amended pages of their particulars of claim within 10 days from the date of this order.