NT Makhubele Enterprise CC and Another v Business Partners Limited (2220/2017) [2022] ZAGPJHC 968 (25 November 2022)

NT Makhubele Enterprise CC and Another v Business Partners Limited (2220/2017) [2022] ZAGPJHC 968 (25 November 2022)

The court found that the refusal to grant leave to amend the particulars of claim was not a final or dispositive judgment and did not preclude the applicants from bringing a further notice to amend that properly sets out a cause of action. The applicants failed to address the authority of Nxumalo v First Link Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd, which supports the refusal of amendments that would result in no cause of action. The constitutional argument regarding Rule 28(4) was not supported by any challenge to the rule's validity. The court held that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no compelling reason for leave to appeal. The allegation of bias was unfounded, as the...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 968
Parties
Applicant: NT Makhubele Enterprise CC; Applicant: Nathaniel Tsakane Makhubele; Respondent: Business Partners Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 November 2022
Case Number
2220/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal of Amendment to Particulars of Claim.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Grenfell
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Appeal, Exception and Excipiability, Rule 28, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Leave to Appeal Exception and Excipiability Rule 28 Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NT Makhubele Enterprise CC

Applicant

Nathaniel Tsakane Makhubele

Applicant

Business Partners Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal of Amendment to Particulars of Claim.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant leave to amend the particulars of claim was a misdirection on the facts or law.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to amend was tainted by bias against the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal or any compelling reason for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the refusal to grant leave to amend the particulars of claim was not a final or dispositive judgment and did not preclude the applicants from bringing a further notice to amend that properly sets out a cause of action. The applicants failed to address the authority of Nxumalo v First Link Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd, which supports the refusal of amendments that would result in no cause of action. The constitutional argument regarding Rule 28(4) was not supported by any challenge to the rule's validity. The court held that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no compelling reason for leave to appeal. The allegation of bias was unfounded, as the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal the order of 19 June 2020 is dismissed.
  • The costs of the application for leave to appeal are to be paid by the applicants, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.