PKX Capital (Pty) Ltd v Isago at N12 Development (Pty) Ltd (87615/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 175 (24 March 2022)

PKX Capital (Pty) Ltd v Isago at N12 Development (Pty) Ltd (87615/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 175 (24 March 2022)

The court found that the amendment sought by the plaintiff was derived from the same agreement underlying the original claim and did not mislead the defendant. References to the relevant clauses were made in the evidence, and the amendment would allow proper ventilation of the dispute. The court held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 175
Parties
Applicant: PKX Capital (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Isago at N12 Development (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2022
Case Number
87615/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim After Trial But Before Judgment
Judges
Khashane La M. Manamela
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Amend, Contractual Liability, Transactional Advisor Fee
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Amendment of Pleadings Leave to Amend Contractual Liability Transactional Advisor Fee

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PKX Capital (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Isago at N12 Development (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim After Trial But Before Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend its particulars of claim after the close of evidence but before judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment introduces a triable issue supported by the evidence adduced.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the defendant incapable of cure by costs or other orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the amendment sought by the plaintiff was derived from the same agreement underlying the original claim and did not mislead the defendant. References to the relevant clauses were made in the evidence, and the amendment would allow proper ventilation of the dispute. The court held that the amendment raised a triable issue deserving of consideration and was supported by prima facie evidence. Any prejudice to the defendant could be cured by a costs order and the opportunity to recall witnesses. The timing of the amendment, though late, was not decisive, and delay alone does not justify refusal. The application was bona fide and not intended to harass the defendant....