Wanda v Minister of Safety & Security (8810/2008) [2017] ZAKZDHC 7 (3 March 2017)

Wanda v Minister of Safety & Security (8810/2008) [2017] ZAKZDHC 7 (3 March 2017)

The court held that amendments to pleadings introducing new claims or increasing quantum after a final judgment on liability are impermissible under rule 28(10) of the Uniform Rules of Court, as the court becomes functus officio. The plaintiff's amendment to introduce a claim for malicious prosecution and increase the quantum for loss of earnings was declared a nullity and set aside. However, the amendment correcting a misnomer from 'assault' to 'arrest and detention' was granted, as it did not prejudice the defendant. The amendment to increase general damages was allowed, subject to proof at the quantum trial, as it related only to quantum and not liability. Costs were reserved for...

Citation
[2017] ZAKZDHC 7
Parties
Plaintiff: Sizwe Agrippa Wanda; Defendant: Minister of Safety & Security
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2017
Case Number
8810/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim Prior to Quantum Trial
Outcome
Amendments introducing malicious prosecution and increased loss of earnings after final judgment on liability are set aside as nullities; amendment correcting misnomer and increasing general damages is granted subject to proof; costs reserved for quantum trial.
Judges
Henriques
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Rule 28 Uniform Rules, Malicious Prosecution, Quantum of Damages, Wrongful Arrest and Detention
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Rule 28 Uniform Rules Malicious Prosecution Quantum of Damages Wrongful Arrest and Detention

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sizwe Agrippa Wanda

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety & Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim Prior to Quantum Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff may amend his particulars of claim after a final judgment on liability has been granted.
  2. 2 Whether the amendment to introduce a claim for malicious prosecution and increase the quantum of damages is permissible.
  3. 3 Whether the correction of a misnomer in the pleadings prejudices the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that amendments to pleadings introducing new claims or increasing quantum after a final judgment on liability are impermissible under rule 28(10) of the Uniform Rules of Court, as the court becomes functus officio. The plaintiff's amendment to introduce a claim for malicious prosecution and increase the quantum for loss of earnings was declared a nullity and set aside. However, the amendment correcting a misnomer from 'assault' to 'arrest and detention' was granted, as it did not prejudice the defendant. The amendment to increase general damages was allowed, subject to proof at the quantum trial, as it related only to quantum and not liability. Costs were reserved for...

Court Disposition

Amendments introducing malicious prosecution and increased loss of earnings after final judgment on liability are set aside as nullities; amendment correcting misnomer and increasing general damages is granted subject to proof; costs reserved for quantum trial.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s amendment of 3 July 2014 to insert the word 'maliciously' and claim the increased sum of R 30 000 for malicious prosecution in paragraph 4(c) in his amended particulars of claim is a nullity and is accordingly set aside.
  • The plaintiff’s amendment to replace the words 'to date' and substitute same with the words 'to the end of October 2014' and the consequent increase of the plaintiff’s claim for loss of earnings is also declared a nullity and is set aside.