Oosthuizen N.O and Another v Glossop and Another (73282/2014) [2022] ZAGPPHC 673 (30 August 2022)

Oosthuizen N.O and Another v Glossop and Another (73282/2014) [2022] ZAGPPHC 673 (30 August 2022)

The court found that the respondents' service of the notice of intention to amend and the amended particulars of claim on 4 August 2021 constituted an irregular step, as it did not comply with Rule 28 and the prior order of van Heerden AJ. The respondents failed to properly invoke the procedure for amendments after an objection was raised, and their subsequent actions were defective. However, given the respondents' self-represented status and their plea for leniency, the court extended the timeframe for compliance and directed that any new notice of intention to amend must be compliant with the Rules and checked by a legal practitioner. The court further ordered that, should no objection...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 673
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Jacobus Oosthuizen N.O; Applicant: Magdalena Johanna Snyman; Respondent: Ingrid Elisabeth Glossop; Respondent: Clive Ward Granville
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 2022
Case Number
73282/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Declaratory Relief Regarding Amendment Procedure
Outcome
Application granted in part; irregular steps set aside; extension granted for proper amendment; costs in the cause.
Judges
P N Manamela
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Irregular Proceedings, Rule 28, Joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Irregular Proceedings Rule 28 Joinder of Parties

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Jacobus Oosthuizen N.O

Applicant

Magdalena Johanna Snyman

Applicant

Ingrid Elisabeth Glossop

Respondent

Clive Ward Granville

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Declaratory Relief Regarding Amendment Procedure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the service of the notice of intention to amend and the amended particulars of claim on 4 August 2021 constituted an irregular step.
  2. 2 Whether the amended particulars of claim should be set aside due to non-compliance with Rule 28.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent/Plaintiff should be granted an extension to properly effect amendments in compliance with the Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' service of the notice of intention to amend and the amended particulars of claim on 4 August 2021 constituted an irregular step, as it did not comply with Rule 28 and the prior order of van Heerden AJ. The respondents failed to properly invoke the procedure for amendments after an objection was raised, and their subsequent actions were defective. However, given the respondents' self-represented status and their plea for leniency, the court extended the timeframe for compliance and directed that any new notice of intention to amend must be compliant with the Rules and checked by a legal practitioner. The court further ordered that, should no objection...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; irregular steps set aside; extension granted for proper amendment; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The notice of intention to amend and service of the amended particulars of claim by the respondents on 4 August 2021 are declared irregular and set aside.
  • The timeframe for service and filing of a new notice of intention to amend is extended by 10 days from the date of this order, with compliance required by no later than 9 September 2022, and the notice must be checked by a legal practitioner.