Ntanzi and Another v Draht (12726/2013) [2018] ZAGPPHC 363 (18 May 2018)

Ntanzi and Another v Draht (12726/2013) [2018] ZAGPPHC 363 (18 May 2018)

The court found that the Applicants' intended amendment did not constitute a withdrawal of admissions and that the details of the alleged mistake in the contract are matters for evidence at trial, not for pleading. The Applicants are entitled to plead rectification if they allege that the contract does not reflect the true common intention of the parties. The Respondent's objections regarding the sufficiency of the pleaded mistake and the excipiability of the pleadings were rejected. The court granted the Applicants leave to amend their Plea and Counterclaim and ordered the Respondent to pay the costs of the application.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 363
Parties
Applicant: Loyiso Ntanzi; Applicant: Nomuhle Ntanzi; Respondent: Heiko Draht
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2018
Case Number
12726/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Amend Plea and Counterclaim Under Rule 28(4)
Outcome
Application granted; leave to amend Plea and Counterclaim.
Judges
Nochumsohn
Legal Topics
Rectification of Contract, Pleading Amendment, Building Contract Dispute, Mistake in Contract, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Rectification of Contract Pleading Amendment Building Contract Dispute Mistake in Contract 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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loyiso Ntanzi

Applicant

Nomuhle Ntanzi

Applicant

Heiko Draht

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Amend Plea and Counterclaim Under Rule 28(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants should be granted leave to amend their Plea and Counterclaim in accordance with the Fifth Notice of Intention to Amend.
  2. 2 Whether the intended amendment constitutes a withdrawal of admissions or renders the pleadings excipiable.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants have pleaded sufficient detail regarding the alleged mistake in the contract to justify rectification.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicants' intended amendment did not constitute a withdrawal of admissions and that the details of the alleged mistake in the contract are matters for evidence at trial, not for pleading. The Applicants are entitled to plead rectification if they allege that the contract does not reflect the true common intention of the parties. The Respondent's objections regarding the sufficiency of the pleaded mistake and the excipiability of the pleadings were rejected. The court granted the Applicants leave to amend their Plea and Counterclaim and ordered the Respondent to pay the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Application granted; leave to amend Plea and Counterclaim.

Orders

  • The Applicants are granted leave to amend the Plea and Counterclaim within ten days from the date of this Order, in accordance with the Fifth Notice of Intention to Amend dated 5 August 2017 and filed on 7 September 2017.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicants' costs in relation to this application, to be taxed on the scale as between party and party.