Sambit Holdings (Proprietary) Limited v Marais and Another (90194/2015) [2021] ZAGPPHC 206 (8 April 2021)

Sambit Holdings (Proprietary) Limited v Marais and Another (90194/2015) [2021] ZAGPPHC 206 (8 April 2021)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success for the appeal. The applicant sought to introduce a new cause of action by amendment after the pleadings had closed and after the claim had prescribed, without showing special or exceptional circumstances. The attempt to amend the replication to include the re-cession was prejudicial to the respondents. The authorities relied upon by the applicant were distinguishable on the facts. Condonation for the delay in prosecuting the application for leave to appeal was granted, but this did not affect the merits. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 206
Parties
Applicant: Sambit Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Johan Marais; Respondent: Paul Mojapelo
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 April 2021
Case Number
90194/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Amendment Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
G.T. Avvakoumides
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Condonation, Prescription, Cession, Rule 18 6
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Condonation Prescription Cession Rule 18 6

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sambit Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Johan Marais

Respondent

Paul Mojapelo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the dismissal of the application to amend replication.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established special or exceptional circumstances to introduce a new cause of action after summons was issued.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for delay in prosecuting the application for leave to appeal should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success for the appeal. The applicant sought to introduce a new cause of action by amendment after the pleadings had closed and after the claim had prescribed, without showing special or exceptional circumstances. The attempt to amend the replication to include the re-cession was prejudicial to the respondents. The authorities relied upon by the applicant were distinguishable on the facts. Condonation for the delay in prosecuting the application for leave to appeal was granted, but this did not affect the merits. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Condonation for the delay in prosecuting the application for leave to appeal is granted.