R & R Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tanzer Transport (Pty) Ltd (266/2002_) [2007] ZAECHC 85; ; (15 November 2007)

R & R Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tanzer Transport (Pty) Ltd (266/2002_) [2007] ZAECHC 85; ; (15 November 2007)

The court held that the order for joinder was appealable as it was a substantive application distinct from the main action and definitive of the rights of the parties to the joinder application. The conduct of the first defendant and its representatives, particularly the failure to disclose material facts regarding Webster's employment, justified the joinder of the second and third appellants as defendants. The joinder did not prejudice the rights of the joined defendants, as they would have all the rights of a defendant, including the right to file pleadings and recall witnesses. The alternative of requiring the plaintiff to withdraw and recommence proceedings would result in unnecessary...

Citation
[2007] ZAECHC 85
Parties
Appellant: R & R Construction (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Rodney Randall NO; Appellant: Eugene Randall NO; Respondent: Tanzer Transport (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2007
Case Number
266/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Joinder Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; order for joinder confirmed and amended.
Judges
F Kroon, Y Ebrahim, F Dawood
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Pleadings, Interlocutory Orders
Civil Procedure Joinder of Parties Pleadings Interlocutory Orders

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R & R Construction (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Rodney Randall NO

Appellant

Eugene Randall NO

Appellant

Tanzer Transport (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Joinder Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the order joining the second and third appellants as defendants appealable under section 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act?
  2. 2 Was the joinder of the second and third appellants as defendants in the main action appropriate in the circumstances?
  3. 3 Did the conduct of the first defendant and its representatives justify the joinder order?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the order for joinder was appealable as it was a substantive application distinct from the main action and definitive of the rights of the parties to the joinder application. The conduct of the first defendant and its representatives, particularly the failure to disclose material facts regarding Webster's employment, justified the joinder of the second and third appellants as defendants. The joinder did not prejudice the rights of the joined defendants, as they would have all the rights of a defendant, including the right to file pleadings and recall witnesses. The alternative of requiring the plaintiff to withdraw and recommence proceedings would result in unnecessary...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; order for joinder confirmed and amended.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to be paid by the three appellants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.
  • The order of the court a quo is amended to require the applicant to file, within 10 days of this order, amended particulars of claim reflecting the joinder of the second and third respondents as defendants and the cause of action invoked against them.