Zuma v Road Accident Fund (2014/19415) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1238 (27 November 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 1238
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Erasmus
- Case number
- 2014/19415
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Erasmus
- Case number
- 2014/19415
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the plaintiff's substantial amendment to the particulars of claim, which increased the quantum claimed, reopened pleadings. As a result, the defendant was entitled to plead afresh to the amended claim. Default judgment could not be granted until pleadings were closed again, either by the defendant amending its plea or by the expiry of the notice of bar period. The procedural requirements for closing pleadings after an amendment must be strictly observed before default judgment is sought. The dismissal of the default judgment application was therefore procedurally correct, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
Court disposition
Default judgment dismissed on procedural grounds; costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Orders
- Default judgment is dismissed.
- The defendant is entitled to plead afresh to the amended particulars of claim.
- The plaintiff is awarded costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Zuma Siphindile Samukelisiwe
Plaintiff Counsel: U. JordaanRoad Accident Fund
Defendant Counsel: S DokodelaAmounts and remedies
- Original Claim Quantum: ZAR 2,571,774.53
- Amended Claim Quantum: ZAR 5,899,984.53
03
Procedural history
Posture
Default Judgment / Reasons for Order After Dismissal of Default Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the amendment to the particulars of claim reopened pleadings, thereby precluding the granting of default judgment until pleadings closed again.
- 02
Whether the defendant was entitled to plead afresh to the amended claim before default judgment could be sought.
- 03
What procedural steps are required to close pleadings after a substantial amendment.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff argued that pleadings had closed and that default judgment was appropriate following the striking out of the defendant's defence. The plaintiff maintained that the amendment to the particulars of claim did not affect the closure of pleadings and that the defendant had failed to respond within the prescribed period, justifying default judgment.
- Respondent
- The defendant contended that the substantial amendment to the particulars of claim, specifically the increase in quantum, reopened pleadings and entitled the defendant to plead afresh. The defendant argued that default judgment could not be granted until pleadings were closed again, either by amendment or expiry of the notice of bar period.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Tshepo Patricia Rallele obo Pearl Mohlala Makhudubela v Road Accident Fund (9117/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC (18 April 2024)
A substantial amendment to pleadings, such as a significant increase in the quantum claimed, reopens pleadings and entitles the defendant to plead afresh.
- 02
Uniform Rule 28(8)
Rule 28(8) of the Uniform Rules allows any party affected by an amendment to make consequential adjustments to documents filed.
- 03
Olivier v MEC of Health, Western Cape 2023 (2) SA 551 (WCC) at [21]
An increase in quantum, even if not altering the cause of action or parties, is a substantial amendment requiring a new pleading.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the plaintiff's substantial amendment to the particulars of claim, which increased the quantum claimed, reopened pleadings. As a result, the defendant was entitled to plead afresh to the amended claim. Default judgment could not be granted until pleadings were closed again, either by the defendant amending its plea or by the expiry of the notice of bar period. The procedural requirements for closing pleadings after an amendment must be strictly observed before default judgment is sought. The dismissal of the default judgment application was therefore procedurally correct, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
Obiter and limits
- Allowing a defendant to plead afresh after a substantial amendment is consistent with the principles of fairness and the provisions of Rule 28(8).
- A mere increase in quantum, even without changing the cause of action, constitutes a substantial amendment that reopens pleadings.
Court disposition
Default judgment dismissed on procedural grounds; costs awarded to the plaintiff.
- Default judgment is dismissed.
- The defendant is entitled to plead afresh to the amended particulars of claim.
- The plaintiff is awarded costs.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Order
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2014/19415
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
In the matter between:
ZUMA
SIPHINDILE SAMUKELISIWE Plaintiff and
THE
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
ERASMUS, AJ
Introduction
[1] This matter came before me on 26 March 2024 as a default judgment which I dismissed on procedural grounds. Despite the dismissal, I awarded costs to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has requested in terms of Rule 49 to furnish reasons for my decision, which I now proceed to give.
[2] The sequence of events leading to the matter coming before me was as follows:
a. The combined summons was served on 10 June 2014.
b. The action was defended and the Defendant filed a plea on 24 July 2014.
c. On 7 February 2023, the Defendant’s defence was struck out.
d. Default judgment was then applied for and as part of the application the attorney for the Plaintiff on 14 February 2024 filed a statement in terms of section 5.6 of the Revised Practice Directive that pleadings had closed. The averment regarding the close of pleadings is essential to securing a default date as default judgment in a defended matter cannot be sought unless pleadings are closed.
e. On 23 February 2024, Plaintiff’s attorney served, in terms of Uniform Rule 28, a notice of intention to amend the particulars of claim. The cumulative effect of the proposed amendment was to increase the value of the Plaintiff’s claim from R2 571 774-53 to R5 899 984-53.
f. No objection was received and on 11 March 2024, the amended pages were served.
[3] In Tshepo Patricia Rallele obo Pearl Mohlala Makhudubela v Road Accident Fund (9117/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC (18 April 2024) (“Rallele”) Davis J dealt with the situation where an amendment was brought after the striking of a defence stating that: “Although doubt had been expressed whether an immaterial or minor amendment would have the same result of a “fresh litis contestation”, it must be beyond doubt that any substantial amendment would have the result that pleadings are reopened.”
[4] Regarding whether changing the amount claimed constituted a substantial amendment Davis J referred to the judgment of Olivier[1] which stated that: “It may be so that this increase in quantum did not alter the cause of action, the identity of the parties and the scope of the issues in dispute .... Notwithstanding, the scope of damages has been increased significantly and would without doubt require a pleading”.
[5] Davis J concluded that “Once that claim had been “frozen” by the close of pleadings and the plaintiff thereafter seeks to “unfreeze” its position, there can, in my view, be no objection to allow a defendant to plead to this “unfrozen” or reopened case. To allow a defendant to plead afresh, would also be consistent with provisions of Rule 28(8) which expressly allows “any party affected by an amendment... to make... any consequential adjustment to documents filed by him”
[6] I agree with the principles set out by Davis J and restated by Kruger AJ[2] and applied to the present matter it is clear that by bringing the amendment pleading were reopened by the Plaintiff when his amended pages on 11 March 2024.
Conclusion
[7] Therefore, when pleadings were reopened on 11 March 204 the right to plead to the amendment accrued to the Defendant and default judgment could not be sought until they were closed again. To close pleadings the defendant either have to amend its plea or fifteen days should have elapsed after which a notice of bar would have to be served by the plaintiff on the defendant. Once the period of bar expired pleadings would have closed and only then default judgment could be sought.
D ERASMUS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
For the Applicant: U. Jordaan instructed by JJ Van Rensburg Attorneys
For the Respondent: S Dokodela instructed by Road Accident Fund (State Attorney)
Date of Order:
26 March 2024
Date of Reasons:
21 November 2024
[1] Olivier v MEC of Health, Western Cape 2023 (2) SA 551 (WCC) at [21] (Olivier)
[2] Pulane Qhamakoane v Raf, (19131/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 795 (12 August 2024)
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.