Van Zyl v Joubert (62990/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 326 (30 June 2017)

Van Zyl v Joubert (62990/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 326 (30 June 2017)

The court held that the approach to amendments of pleadings is to allow them if they are bona fide and do not cause prejudice that cannot be cured by a postponement or a costs order. The objections raised by the respondent, namely illegality under the Alienation of Land Act and prescription, do not render the proposed amendment bad in law at this stage, as the nature of the agreement and the applicability of prescription are factual matters to be determined at trial. The applicant has disclosed a cause of action, and the amendment does not make the pleadings excipiable on every reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the amendment should be allowed to ensure that the real issues between the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 326
Parties
Applicant: J.M. Van Zyl; Respondent: Christiaan Joubert
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 June 2017
Case Number
62990/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
The application to amend the particulars of claim is upheld.
Judges
Sardiwalla
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Alienation of Land Act, Prescription Act, Oral Contracts
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Amendment of Pleadings Alienation of Land Act Prescription Act Oral Contracts

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

J.M. Van Zyl

Applicant

Christiaan Joubert

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the court's approach to the amendment of pleadings?
  2. 2 Should the amendment to the particulars of claim be allowed in this case?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the approach to amendments of pleadings is to allow them if they are bona fide and do not cause prejudice that cannot be cured by a postponement or a costs order. The objections raised by the respondent, namely illegality under the Alienation of Land Act and prescription, do not render the proposed amendment bad in law at this stage, as the nature of the agreement and the applicability of prescription are factual matters to be determined at trial. The applicant has disclosed a cause of action, and the amendment does not make the pleadings excipiable on every reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the amendment should be allowed to ensure that the real issues between the...

Court Disposition

The application to amend the particulars of claim is upheld.

Orders

  • The applicant's application to amend the particulars of claim is upheld.
  • The trial court shall determine costs of this application.