Nedbank v Makume (2019/19258) [2022] ZAGPJHC 246 (22 April 2022)

Nedbank v Makume (2019/19258) [2022] ZAGPJHC 246 (22 April 2022)

The court held that the plaintiff's damages affidavit did not constitute a valid amendment or supplementation of the pleadings as required by the Uniform Rules of Court. No recognised procedure was followed to update the claim for damages, nor was any application for condonation brought. As a result, the court did not have sufficient information or procedural compliance to consider the application for default judgment on quantum. The application was accordingly struck from the roll, with leave for the plaintiff to address the procedural deficiencies in future. No order as to costs was made due to the absence of opposition.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 246
Parties
Plaintiff: Nedbank Limited; Defendant: Letebele Daniel Makume
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 April 2022
Case Number
2019/19258
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment on Quantum Following Prior Order for Cancellation and Delivery
Outcome
Application for default judgment on damages struck from the roll; no order as to costs.
Judges
VM Movshovich
Legal Topics
Instalment Sale Agreement, Default Judgment, Damages Quantification, Pleadings Amendment
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Instalment Sale Agreement Default Judgment Damages Quantification Pleadings 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Limited

Plaintiff

Letebele Daniel Makume

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment on Quantum Following Prior Order for Cancellation and Delivery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's application for default judgment on damages was properly brought before the court.
  2. 2 Whether the damages affidavit constituted a valid update or amendment to the pleadings under the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the court had sufficient information to consider the quantum of damages claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's damages affidavit did not constitute a valid amendment or supplementation of the pleadings as required by the Uniform Rules of Court. No recognised procedure was followed to update the claim for damages, nor was any application for condonation brought. As a result, the court did not have sufficient information or procedural compliance to consider the application for default judgment on quantum. The application was accordingly struck from the roll, with leave for the plaintiff to address the procedural deficiencies in future. No order as to costs was made due to the absence of opposition.

Court Disposition

Application for default judgment on damages struck from the roll; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application for default judgment dated 19 October 2021 is struck from the roll.
  • No order as to costs.