Plus 94 Research (Pty) Ltd v N.U and Another (2023-115047) [2024] ZAGPPHC 573 (19 June 2024)

Plus 94 Research (Pty) Ltd v N.U and Another (2023-115047) [2024] ZAGPPHC 573 (19 June 2024)

The court held that the filing of a notice of intention to amend the plea, where the period for objection under rule 28(2) has not expired, bars the hearing of the summary judgment application. This is because the amendment process must be completed to ensure procedural fairness and to allow the plaintiff to address any new defences raised. The plaintiff may, after the amendment process is exhausted, file a supplementary affidavit and set the summary judgment application down for hearing. The wasted costs occasioned by the postponement are to be borne by the respondents, as the delay was caused by their belated filing of the notice of intention to amend.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 573
Parties
Applicant: Plus 94 Research (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: N[...] U[...]; Respondent: N[...] U[...] (in her capacity as legal guardian of the minor child D[...] M[...] U[...])
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2024
Case Number
2023-115047
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Postponement Pending Amendment Process
Outcome
The summary judgment application is postponed sine die pending completion of the amendment process. The respondents are ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.
Judges
Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Rule 28, Rule 32, Wasted Costs
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Amendment of Pleadings Rule 28 Rule 32 Wasted Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plus 94 Research (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

N[...] U[...]

Respondent

N[...] U[...] (in her capacity as legal guardian of the minor child D[...] M[...] U[...])

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Postponement Pending Amendment Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the filing of a notice of intention to amend a plea by the defendant bars the hearing of a summary judgment application.
  2. 2 What procedure should be followed when a proposed amendment to a plea is pending during summary judgment proceedings.
  3. 3 Who should bear the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement due to the amendment notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the filing of a notice of intention to amend the plea, where the period for objection under rule 28(2) has not expired, bars the hearing of the summary judgment application. This is because the amendment process must be completed to ensure procedural fairness and to allow the plaintiff to address any new defences raised. The plaintiff may, after the amendment process is exhausted, file a supplementary affidavit and set the summary judgment application down for hearing. The wasted costs occasioned by the postponement are to be borne by the respondents, as the delay was caused by their belated filing of the notice of intention to amend.

Court Disposition

The summary judgment application is postponed sine die pending completion of the amendment process. The respondents are ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.

Orders

  • The application for summary judgment is postponed sine die.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.