Shake's Multi-Save Supermarket CC v Haffejee and Another; In re: Shake's Multi-Save Supermarket CC v Haffejee (413/12) [2015] ZANWHC 48 (21 August 2015)

Shake's Multi-Save Supermarket CC v Haffejee and Another; In re: Shake's Multi-Save Supermarket CC v Haffejee (413/12) [2015] ZANWHC 48 (21 August 2015)

The court held that it remains competent for a plaintiff to join a party as a defendant on the grounds of convenience under both common law and Rule 10(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The grammatical construction of the Supreme Court of Appeal's dictum does not preclude joinder for convenience, and the court in Fluxmans Incorporated was not concerned with such joinder. The facts indicate that the Close Corporation may have a direct and substantial interest in the action, especially if the pleadings are amended. Joinder will avoid a multiplicity of actions and is likely to advance the course of justice without causing prejudice to the Close Corporation. Although there was a delay in...

Citation
[2015] ZANWHC 48
Parties
Applicant: Shake's Multi-Save Supermarket CC; Respondent: Ahmed Abdul Hay Haffejee; Respondent: A I Hampers CC
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 August 2015
Case Number
413/12
Procedural Posture
Joinder Application / Application for Joinder of Second Defendant Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for joinder granted; Close Corporation joined as second defendant; costs to be costs in the cause.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Oral Agreement, Multiplicity of Actions, Direct and Substantial Interest
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Joinder of Parties Oral Agreement Multiplicity of Actions Direct and Substantial Interest

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shake's Multi-Save Supermarket CC

Applicant

Ahmed Abdul Hay Haffejee

Respondent

A I Hampers CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Joinder Application / Application for Joinder of Second Defendant Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Close Corporation (A I Hampers CC) should be joined as a second defendant on the basis of convenience.
  2. 2 Whether joinder is permissible under common law and Rule 10(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the joinder application should preclude joinder.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it remains competent for a plaintiff to join a party as a defendant on the grounds of convenience under both common law and Rule 10(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The grammatical construction of the Supreme Court of Appeal's dictum does not preclude joinder for convenience, and the court in Fluxmans Incorporated was not concerned with such joinder. The facts indicate that the Close Corporation may have a direct and substantial interest in the action, especially if the pleadings are amended. Joinder will avoid a multiplicity of actions and is likely to advance the course of justice without causing prejudice to the Close Corporation. Although there was a delay in...

Court Disposition

Application for joinder granted; Close Corporation joined as second defendant; costs to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The second respondent (A I Hampers CC) is joined in the main action under case number 413/2012 as the second defendant.
  • The applicant, as plaintiff, is ordered to deliver its proposed amendment of the declaration to the first and second defendants within 10 days of granting this order.