Steenkamp NO and Another v African National Congress (2008/2231) [2012] ZAGPJHC 162 (13 September 2012)

Steenkamp NO and Another v African National Congress (2008/2231) [2012] ZAGPJHC 162 (13 September 2012)

The court found that the defendant's original plea, although poorly drafted, did not amount to an unqualified admission of the payments alleged by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the proposed amendment did not constitute a withdrawal of an admission. The principles governing amendments to pleadings require that amendments be allowed unless mala fides or irremediable prejudice is shown. In this case, no mala fides or real prejudice was established, especially since the trial was postponed due to the plaintiffs' inadequate discovery. The defendant's acceptance of liability for the costs occasioned by the amendment was appropriate, and the plaintiffs' opposition was deemed fair and reasonable...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPJHC 162
Parties
Plaintiff: Jurgens Johannes Steenkamp NO; Plaintiff: Hassen Kajie NO; Defendant: African National Congress
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2012
Case Number
2008/2231
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Amendment of Plea
Outcome
Application for amendment of plea granted; defendant ordered to pay costs occasioned by the amendment and the plaintiffs' opposition.
Judges
FHD Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admission, Prejudice, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Withdrawal of Admission Prejudice Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jurgens Johannes Steenkamp NO

Plaintiff

Hassen Kajie NO

Plaintiff

African National Congress

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Amendment of Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendment to the defendant's plea constitutes a withdrawal of an admission.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's original plea contained an unqualified admission of the payments alleged by the plaintiffs.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment should be allowed in light of potential prejudice to the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's original plea, although poorly drafted, did not amount to an unqualified admission of the payments alleged by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the proposed amendment did not constitute a withdrawal of an admission. The principles governing amendments to pleadings require that amendments be allowed unless mala fides or irremediable prejudice is shown. In this case, no mala fides or real prejudice was established, especially since the trial was postponed due to the plaintiffs' inadequate discovery. The defendant's acceptance of liability for the costs occasioned by the amendment was appropriate, and the plaintiffs' opposition was deemed fair and reasonable...

Court Disposition

Application for amendment of plea granted; defendant ordered to pay costs occasioned by the amendment and the plaintiffs' opposition.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the defendant to amend its plea in accordance with the defendant's notice of intention to amend dated 19 July 2012.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the amendment including the plaintiffs' costs of opposing the application.