P.W v R.W and Another (A165/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 164 (21 May 2020)

P.W v R.W and Another (A165/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 164 (21 May 2020)

The court held that the admission made by the appellant regarding the first respondent's entitlement to maintenance after the deceased's death was a legal conclusion, not a factual admission. Mistakes of law are not binding on the court, and the determination of the correct legal position is the prerogative of the court. The appellant's admission, made in error following incorrect legal advice, should not preclude her from withdrawing it. The court found that the withdrawal of the admission would not prejudice the first respondent, as it did not alter the admitted facts but corrected the legal position. The application to amend the plea should have been allowed, and the appeal was upheld....

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 164
Parties
Appellant: P W; Respondent: R W; Respondent: THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 May 2020
Case Number
A165/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Application; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside; appellant granted leave to withdraw the admission and amend her plea.
Judges
Naidoo, Mbhele, Mathebula
Legal Topics
Maintenance After Divorce, Withdrawal of Admission, Amendment of Pleadings, Rule 28 Uniform Rules, Prejudice and Bona Fides
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance After Divorce Withdrawal of Admission Amendment of Pleadings Rule 28 Uniform Rules Prejudice and Bona Fides

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P W

Appellant

R W

Respondent

THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Application; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be permitted to withdraw an admission made in her plea regarding the first respondent's entitlement to maintenance after the death of the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the admission was a factual or legal admission and the consequences thereof.
  3. 3 Whether the application to amend the plea complied with Rule 28 of the Uniform Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the admission made by the appellant regarding the first respondent's entitlement to maintenance after the deceased's death was a legal conclusion, not a factual admission. Mistakes of law are not binding on the court, and the determination of the correct legal position is the prerogative of the court. The appellant's admission, made in error following incorrect legal advice, should not preclude her from withdrawing it. The court found that the withdrawal of the admission would not prejudice the first respondent, as it did not alter the admitted facts but corrected the legal position. The application to amend the plea should have been allowed, and the appeal was upheld....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside; appellant granted leave to withdraw the admission and amend her plea.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.