Rex v Diedricks (865/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 151 (7 June 2021)

Rex v Diedricks (865/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 151 (7 June 2021)

The court found that the applicant's late filing of the notice to amend was due to a bona fide mistake and the challenging period over the festive season. The court held that condonation should be granted as the counterclaim, although struck out, remained in the court file and could be amended. The applicant had pleaded all necessary elements for defamation with sufficient particularity, and the amendments would not render the claims excipiable. The respondent's opposition was found to be unreasonable and frivolous. Accordingly, the applicant was granted leave to amend his counterclaim, and each party was ordered to pay his own costs.

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 151
Parties
Applicant: Charlton Michael Rex; Respondent: Kenneth Leonardo Diedricks
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2021
Case Number
865/2020
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Opposed Application for Leave to Amend Counterclaim and Condonation for Late Filing
Outcome
Application for condonation and leave to amend counterclaim granted. Each party to pay his own costs.
Judges
DAFFUE, ADJP
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Condonation, Defamation, Uniform Rules of Court, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Delict Amendment of Pleadings Condonation Defamation Uniform Rules of Court Costs 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlton Michael Rex

Applicant

Kenneth Leonardo Diedricks

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Opposed Application for Leave to Amend Counterclaim and Condonation for Late Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's late filing of the notice to amend his counterclaim should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend his counterclaim after it was struck out for non-compliance with a previous court order.
  3. 3 Whether the amended counterclaim discloses valid causes of action for defamation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's late filing of the notice to amend was due to a bona fide mistake and the challenging period over the festive season. The court held that condonation should be granted as the counterclaim, although struck out, remained in the court file and could be amended. The applicant had pleaded all necessary elements for defamation with sufficient particularity, and the amendments would not render the claims excipiable. The respondent's opposition was found to be unreasonable and frivolous. Accordingly, the applicant was granted leave to amend his counterclaim, and each party was ordered to pay his own costs.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and leave to amend counterclaim granted. Each party to pay his own costs.

Orders

  • The late filing of applicant's application for amendment is condoned.
  • The applicant is granted leave to amend his counterclaim in accordance with his notice of intention to amend dated 19 January 2021.