SKG Africa (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Rural and Others (EL1153/2019) [2021] ZAECGHC 9 (12 January 2021)

SKG Africa (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Rural and Others (EL1153/2019) [2021] ZAECGHC 9 (12 January 2021)

The court found that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but clarified and supported the grounds already raised in the founding affidavit. The third respondent had already addressed the ultra vires and constitutional issues in his answering affidavit, and any additional prejudice could be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAECGHC 9
Parties
Applicant: SKG Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Eastern Cape Rural Development Agency; Respondent: Soffit Properties; Respondent: The Minister of Finance
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 January 2021
Case Number
EL1153/2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Motion and Rule 16 a Notice in Pending Review Proceedings
Outcome
Application for leave to amend granted; costs awarded against the third respondent.
Judges
Maswazi
Legal Topics
Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, Constitutional Invalidity, Amendment of Pleadings, Ultra Vires, Section 9 Equality, Section 22 Right to Trade
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Constitutional Invalidity Amendment of Pleadings Ultra Vires Section 9 Equality +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SKG Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Eastern Cape Rural Development Agency

Respondent

Soffit Properties

Respondent

The Minister of Finance

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Motion and Rule 16 a Notice in Pending Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend its notice of motion and rule 16A notice in the pending review application.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments introduce a new cause of action or prejudice the third respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the objections raised by the third respondent to the amendments are valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but clarified and supported the grounds already raised in the founding affidavit. The third respondent had already addressed the ultra vires and constitutional issues in his answering affidavit, and any additional prejudice could be remedied by allowing further amendments to his pleadings. The inclusion of section 22 of the Constitution did not constitute a new cause of action but provided further support for the existing claim of constitutional invalidity. The court held that the amendments were neither malicious nor unjust and should be granted to ensure proper ventilation of the issues between the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend granted; costs awarded against the third respondent.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend its notice of motion in accordance with its notice of intention to amend dated 11 March 2020.
  • The applicant is granted leave to amend its rule 16A notice in accordance with its notice of intention to amend dated 11 March 2020.