Muller N.O and Others v Gomes and Another (8699/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 350 (18 May 2021)

Muller N.O and Others v Gomes and Another (8699/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 350 (18 May 2021)

The court found that the respondents' objections to the proposed amendment of the particulars of claim were not clear and concise as required by Rule 28(3), relying instead on oblique references to other documents and raising different grounds in their opposing affidavit. The respondents failed to follow the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 350
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 by Respondents
Outcome
Leave to amend the particulars of claim is granted. Each party is to pay its own costs.
Judges
van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 28, Exception Procedure, Vagueness and Embarrassment, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Uniform Rules of Court Rule 28 Exception Procedure Vagueness and Embarrassment Costs Orders

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 7 Party arguments 2
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 by Respondents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend their particulars of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' objections to the proposed amendment comply with Rule 28(3).
  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 amendment of the particulars of claim were not clear and concise as required by Rule 28(3), relying instead on oblique references to other documents and raising different grounds in their opposing affidavit. The respondents failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 30 for procedural objections. Upon reading the particulars of claim and the proposed amendment as a whole, the court held that the applicants had pleaded sufficient particularity to enable the respondents to plead, as only the facta probanda need be set out. The respondents' demand for further detail pertained to facta probantia, which is not required...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend the particulars of claim is granted. Each party is 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.