November and Another v Muller & Partners (A343/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 373 (7 August 2019)

November and Another v Muller & Partners (A343/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 373 (7 August 2019)

The court held that the Gauteng Division had jurisdiction over Muller & Partners when the action was instituted, as the claims against the Fund and Muller & Partners arose from substantially the same facts and legal questions. The joinder of defendants was permissible under Uniform Rule 10(3), and the efficient determination of the matter justified hearing all claims together. The court rejected a narrow reading of the jurisdictional provisions and emphasized the need to develop the common law in the interests of justice. The fact that the Fund settled the claims of the younger daughters after the action was instituted did not affect the court's jurisdiction over Muller & Partners....

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 373
Parties
Appellant: Molonyane Eva November; Appellant: Nozililo Gloria November; Respondent: Muller & Partners
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2019
Case Number
A343/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Upholding Special Plea of Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order upholding plea of lack of jurisdiction set aside and replaced with dismissal of the plea.
Judges
Wright, Mothle, Louw
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Negligence, Joinder of Parties, Loss of Support
Civil Procedure Delict Jurisdiction Negligence Joinder of Parties Loss of Support

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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molonyane Eva November

Appellant

Nozililo Gloria November

Appellant

Muller & Partners

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Upholding Special Plea of Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Gauteng Division had jurisdiction over Muller & Partners for the delictual claim.
  2. 2 Whether the claims against different defendants could be joined in one action.
  3. 3 Whether the plea of lack of jurisdiction should be upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Gauteng Division had jurisdiction over Muller & Partners when the action was instituted, as the claims against the Fund and Muller & Partners arose from substantially the same facts and legal questions. The joinder of defendants was permissible under Uniform Rule 10(3), and the efficient determination of the matter justified hearing all claims together. The court rejected a narrow reading of the jurisdictional provisions and emphasized the need to develop the common law in the interests of justice. The fact that the Fund settled the claims of the younger daughters after the action was instituted did not affect the court's jurisdiction over Muller & Partners....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order upholding plea of lack of jurisdiction set aside and replaced with dismissal of the plea.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including those of senior counsel.
  • The order upholding the plea of lack of jurisdiction and its costs order are set aside.