SA Securitisation Program (Pty) Ltd v Enviroserv Waste Management (Pty) Ltd (3030/2010) [2012] ZAGPJHC 123 (7 June 2012)

SA Securitisation Program (Pty) Ltd v Enviroserv Waste Management (Pty) Ltd (3030/2010) [2012] ZAGPJHC 123 (7 June 2012)

The court found that the plaintiff's proposed amendment to its particulars of claim, except for the correction of its citation, failed to provide sufficient factual allegations regarding the formalities and steps taken to effect the cession agreements. The particulars of claim lacked the necessary averments to establish the plaintiff's locus standi and to sustain a cause of action based on the alleged cession. Furthermore, the alternatives pleaded by the plaintiff were unsupported by valid grounds and embarrassed the defendant in responding. As a result, the court refused the amendment in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of amendment, allowing only the correction of the plaintiff's citation.

Citation
[2012] ZAGPJHC 123
Parties
Plaintiff: SA Securitisation Program (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Enviroserv Waste Management (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2012
Case Number
3030/2010
Procedural Posture
Amendment Application / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim Under Rule 28(4)
Outcome
The application for amendment is partly granted and partly refused.
Judges
FHD Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Exception Procedure, Locus Standi, Vagueness and Embarrassment
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Exception Procedure Locus Standi Vagueness and Embarrassment

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SA Securitisation Program (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Enviroserv Waste Management (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Amendment Application / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim Under Rule 28(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's proposed amendment to its particulars of claim should be allowed under rule 28(4).
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment would render the particulars of claim excipiable for vagueness and embarrassment or for lacking necessary averments to sustain a cause of action.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded its locus standi based on the alleged cession agreements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's proposed amendment to its particulars of claim, except for the correction of its citation, failed to provide sufficient factual allegations regarding the formalities and steps taken to effect the cession agreements. The particulars of claim lacked the necessary averments to establish the plaintiff's locus standi and to sustain a cause of action based on the alleged cession. Furthermore, the alternatives pleaded by the plaintiff were unsupported by valid grounds and embarrassed the defendant in responding. As a result, the court refused the amendment in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of amendment, allowing only the correction of the plaintiff's citation.

Court Disposition

The application for amendment is partly granted and partly refused.

Orders

  • The amendment in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Amendment is allowed.
  • The application for amendment in terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Notice of Amendment is dismissed with costs.