van Sensie v Minister of Police (1658/2015) [2019] ZAECPEHC 48 (6 August 2019)

van Sensie v Minister of Police (1658/2015) [2019] ZAECPEHC 48 (6 August 2019)

The court held that the omission to attach an affidavit to the plaintiff's interlocutory application for leave to amend particulars of claim does not constitute an irregular step under Rule 30(1). Rule 30(1) is limited to positive steps that advance proceedings and does not apply to omissions. The defendant's application was an attempt to prevent the amendment of pleadings and unnecessarily duplicated proceedings and costs. The appropriate procedure for the defendant was to raise objections during the application for amendment, not by way of a Rule 30(1) application. Accordingly, the defendant's application was dismissed and a punitive costs order was granted against the defendant.

Citation
[2019] ZAECPEHC 48
Parties
Applicant: Shadley Craig van Sensie; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 August 2019
Case Number
1658/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim as Irregular Step Under Rule 30(1)
Outcome
Application in terms of Rule 30(1) dismissed with punitive costs order against the defendant.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Rule 30 Irregular Steps, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Rule 30 Irregular Steps Amendment of Pleadings Costs Orders

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shadley Craig van Sensie

Applicant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Particulars of Claim as Irregular Step Under Rule 30(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's application for leave to amend particulars of claim without an affidavit constitutes an irregular step under Rule 30(1).
  2. 2 Whether Rule 30(1) applies to the omission of an affidavit in an interlocutory application for amendment.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's application under Rule 30(1) should be dismissed and a punitive costs order granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the omission to attach an affidavit to the plaintiff's interlocutory application for leave to amend particulars of claim does not constitute an irregular step under Rule 30(1). Rule 30(1) is limited to positive steps that advance proceedings and does not apply to omissions. The defendant's application was an attempt to prevent the amendment of pleadings and unnecessarily duplicated proceedings and costs. The appropriate procedure for the defendant was to raise objections during the application for amendment, not by way of a Rule 30(1) application. Accordingly, the defendant's application was dismissed and a punitive costs order was granted against the defendant.

Court Disposition

Application in terms of Rule 30(1) dismissed with punitive costs order against the defendant.

Orders

  • The application in terms of Rule 30(1) is dismissed.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on a scale as between attorney and client.