South Africa Case Law

Moodliyar and Bedhesi Attorneys v Y.M and Another (A2024/016195)

Moodliyar and Bedhesi Attorneys v Y.M and Another (A2024/016195) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1288 (13 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2024/016195

Judges

Mudau, Dippenaar, Farber

The court held that the amendment to the particulars of claim, which cited the respondents in their representative capacities as guardians of the minor child, amounted to the introduction of new parties to the proceedings. The original summons cited the respondents only in their personal capacities, and individuals in personal and representative capacities are legally distinct. The process did not communicate an intention to claim against the respondents in their representative capacities, and thus section 15(1) of the Prescription Act did not interrupt prescription for those capacities. The…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Misnomer Vs Substitution
• Representative Capacity
• Uniform Rule 28

Essence Lading CC v Infiniti Insurance Limited and Another (2022-4024)

Essence Lading CC v Infiniti Insurance Limited and Another (2022-4024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 241 (7 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/4024

Judge

D Marais

Leave to appeal was refused in a dispute about amending a defendant’s citation, because the amendment was not served on the party to be introduced and would cause incurable prejudice.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Joinder Of Parties
• Misnomer Vs Substitution
• Service Of Process
• Prejudice In Amendments
• Civil-procedure

Essence Lading CC v Infiniti Insurance Ltd Mediterranean Shipping Company (Pty) Ltd (2022/4024)

Essence Lading CC v Infiniti Insurance Ltd Mediterranean Shipping Company (Pty) Ltd (2022/4024) [2023] ZAGPJHC 676; [2023] 3 All SA 410 (GJ); 2024 (2) SA 407 (GJ) (9 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/4024

Judge

D Marais

The High Court held that a wrong-defendant citation could not be fixed by Rule 28 without proper notice to the new party, and dismissed the amendment application.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Joinder And Substitution
• Misnomer Vs Substitution
• Uniform Rule 28
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Amendment-of-pleadings

SSG Security Solutions (Pty) Limited v Vaal University of Technology and Another (67027/17)

SSG Security Solutions (Pty) Limited v Vaal University of Technology and Another (67027/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 775 (28 March 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

67027/17

Judge

Tuchten

The court found that the reference to 'Security Solutions' in the heading was a mistake and not a deliberate substitution of parties. The evidence showed that SSG Security Solutions (Pty) Limited was always intended to be the applicant, as reflected in the founding affidavit and the conduct of the parties. The amendment was therefore granted as a correction of a misnomer. Regarding joinder, the court held that the non-responsive tenderers were not necessary parties because the relief sought did not affect their rights, which had already been determined by administrative action. The applicatio…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Misnomer Vs Substitution
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Foxlake Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Foxway Developments (Pty) Ltd v Ultimate Raft Foundation Design Solutions CC t/a Ultimate Raft Design and Another (144/2015)

Foxlake Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Foxway Developments (Pty) Ltd v Ultimate Raft Foundation Design Solutions CC t/a Ultimate Raft Design and Another (144/2015) [2016] ZASCA 54 (1 April 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

144/2015

Judges

Maya, Seriti, Pillay, Willis, Victor

The court held that the amendment to the citation of the appellant did not amount to the substitution of a new defendant but was a correction of a misnomer. Foxway Developments (Pty) Ltd was always identifiable from the original summons, given the shared address, director, and attached agreement. Service of the original summons at the shared address was sufficient to interrupt prescription under section 15(1) of the Prescription Act, as Foxway recognised its connection to the claim. The amendment did not introduce a new legal entity nor cause prejudice to the appellant. The requirements for i…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Misnomer Vs Substitution
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Service Of Process
• Breach Of Contract

Ultimate Raft Foundation Design Solution CC and Another v Foxlake Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (40956/12)

Ultimate Raft Foundation Design Solution CC and Another v Foxlake Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (40956/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1011 (19 December 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

40956/12

Judge

Strydom

The High Court allowed an amendment to particulars of claim, treating the citation issue as a misnomer/substitution issue raised too late, and ordered costs against the applicants.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Misnomer Vs Substitution
• Prescription Interruption
• Costs Orders
• Amendment-of-pleadings
• Misnomer-vs-substitution

Solenta Aviation (Pty) Ltd v Aviation @Work (Pty) Ltd (754/2012)

Solenta Aviation (Pty) Ltd v Aviation @Work (Pty) Ltd (754/2012) [2013] ZASCA 103; 2014 (2) SA 106 (SCA) (12 September 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

754/2012

Judges

Mthiyane, Ponnan, Tshiqi, Willis, Meyer

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a summons issued in the name of the wrong company did not interrupt prescription, and dismissed the appeal.

• Extinctive Prescription
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Misnomer Vs Substitution
• Issue Estoppel
• Extinctive-prescription
• Interruption-of-prescription

Multioptima Engineering Consultants CC and Others v Public Investment Commissioners and Another (1706/04_)

Multioptima Engineering Consultants CC and Others v Public Investment Commissioners and Another (1706/04_) [2007] ZAGPHC 89 (15 May 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

1706/04

Judge

Hartzenberg

The High Court postponed a dispute over amending the plaintiff’s citation and allowed supplementary affidavits, with wasted costs ordered against the respondent.

• Amendment Of Citation
• Misnomer Vs Substitution
• Prescription
• Postponement
• Supplementary Affidavits
• Amendment-of-citation

Anglo Dutch Meats (Exports) Limited v Blaauwberg Meat Wholesalers cc (A599/01)

Anglo Dutch Meats (Exports) Limited v Blaauwberg Meat Wholesalers cc (A599/01) [2002] ZAWCHC 37 (27 June 2002)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A599/01

Judges

D H Van Zyl, W J Louw, S J Ngwenya

The court held that the amendment of the plaintiff's name from Anglo Dutch Meats (UK) Limited to Anglo Dutch Meats (Exports) Limited was a correction of a misnomer, not the introduction of a new plaintiff. Both parties had always identified Anglo Dutch Meats (Exports) Limited as the seller and creditor. The error in citation was bona fide and did not prejudice the respondent. The amendment operated retrospectively, interrupting prescription from the date of service of the original summons. The trial judge was not bound by the interlocutory order's reasoning but was correct to assess the subst…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Prescription Act
• Misnomer Vs Substitution
• Retrospective Effect Of Amendment