Gravato N.O. and Others v De Wet (61471/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 494 (11 August 2017)

Gravato N.O. and Others v De Wet (61471/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 494 (11 August 2017)

The court exercised its discretion to grant the amendment, finding that the defendant would not be prejudiced by the amendment, as he would have the opportunity to amend his plea and raise any special pleas, including prescription. The court held that the purpose of pleadings is to ventilate the real issues between the parties and that all necessary and material facts should be placed before the court to resolve the dispute. The delay in bringing the amendment was not sufficient reason to refuse it, and the defendant would not suffer injustice that could not be cured by a costs order. The court further held that costs should follow the event, and the unsuccessful defendant in opposing the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 494
Parties
Plaintiff: Victor Muel Ferreira Gravato N.O.; Plaintiff: Jacolien Frieda Janse Van Rensburg N.O.; Plaintiff: Jayayant Daji Pema N.O.; Defendant: M Arlize De Wet
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 August 2017
Case Number
61471/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Leave to amend is granted to the plaintiffs. The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the opposition to the amendment.
Judges
N M Mavundla
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Prescription, Judicial Discretion, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Prescription Judicial Discretion 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Muel Ferreira Gravato N.O.

Plaintiff

Jacolien Frieda Janse Van Rensburg N.O.

Plaintiff

Jayayant Daji Pema N.O.

Plaintiff

M Arlize De Wet

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend their particulars of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment introduces a new cause of action that has prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant would be prejudiced by the late amendment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to grant the amendment, finding that the defendant would not be prejudiced by the amendment, as he would have the opportunity to amend his plea and raise any special pleas, including prescription. The court held that the purpose of pleadings is to ventilate the real issues between the parties and that all necessary and material facts should be placed before the court to resolve the dispute. The delay in bringing the amendment was not sufficient reason to refuse it, and the defendant would not suffer injustice that could not be cured by a costs order. The court further held that costs should follow the event, and the unsuccessful defendant in opposing the...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend is granted to the plaintiffs. The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the opposition to the amendment.

Orders

  • Leave to amend is granted to the plaintiffs.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the opposition to the amendment.