Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Pienaar and Another v Cowens and Another (11933/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 334 (5 August 2025)
The High Court refused leave to amend a claim to add fraudulent misrepresentation, finding the new cause of action prescribed and prejudicial to the defendants.
National Community Radio Forum v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Education Limpopo and Another (3247/2020) [2024] ZALMPPHC 79 (31 July 2024)
The court held that Uniform Rule 28 is generally permissive of amendments to pleadings, provided that no unmitigable prejudice is caused to the opposing party. The proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but clarified and expanded on the existing contractual dispute. The first respondent failed to substantiate any claim of prejudice beyond mere allegations, and the stage of proceedings was still at the pleading phase, where amendments are less likely to cause irreparable harm. The court found no evidence of bad faith or injustice and determined that any potential prejudice…
Source excerpt
A.S v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health KwaZulu-Natal (7630/2013P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 146 (28 November 2023)
The court refused a late amendment to particulars of claim in a medical negligence trial, finding it would be prejudicial and would not advance the real issues.
M.S.G v Savvidou and Another (2020/34451) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1800 (24 October 2023)
The court found that the applicant's proposed amendment was bona fide and necessary to ventilate the real issues between the parties, including claims for loss of support in his representative capacity. Although the applicant had not yet quantified damages in detail, the separation of liability and quantum under rule 33(4) was permissible, and the respondent would not suffer prejudice that could not be compensated by costs. The amendment would facilitate the proper resolution of the dispute and ensure justice between the parties. The court exercised its discretion to grant leave to amend, fin…
Source excerpt
AFHCO Calgro M3 Consortium (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (322/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 976 (23 August 2023)
The High Court held that the respondents used Rule 30 and Rule 30A incorrectly to challenge an amendment and supplementary affidavit, and set their notices aside.
Timber Shavings CC v Homely Property and BNB (Pty) Ltd (3357/2022) [2023] ZAECQBHC 42 (1 August 2023)
The High Court granted leave to amend particulars of claim to add an invoice, finding no irreparable prejudice and leaving the merits for trial.
Miller NO and Others v Ramsammy (21/27354) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1104 (15 March 2023)
The court held that the applicants' proposed amendment to the notice of motion was neither excipiable nor prejudicial to the respondent. The amendment was sought as a precautionary measure in response to the respondent's assertion regarding the absence of an invoice, and did not alter the nature of the dispute or disadvantage the respondent. The respondent's arguments regarding excipiability and prescription were found to be without merit, as the issue of the invoice was raised only in the answering affidavit and not anticipated by the applicants. The court found that any prejudice claimed by…
Source excerpt
Absa Bank Limited v Erasmus (482/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 309 (21 October 2022)
The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of showing that the respondent would not be prejudiced by the proposed amendments. The amendments sought would allow the applicant to dispose of the vehicles, which are the subject of the main action still pending before the court, potentially extinguishing the dispute without proper ventilation. The application was not shown to be in the interests of justice or made in good faith, and the respondent's objections were not adequately addressed. The consolidation of proceedings under one case number did not affect the substance of…
Source excerpt
Selesho v FNB (40719/16) [2020] ZAGPPHC 511 (7 September 2020)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and candid explanation for the circumstances in which the admission was made and for the delay in seeking its withdrawal. The applicant's conduct, including his lack of transparency regarding his dealings with Holmes and the business venture, undermined his bona fides. The court held that the admission made by the applicant's attorney was consistent with the evidence and the applicant's own statements in other forums. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the admission would cause prejudice to the respondent, particularly due to the…
Source excerpt
Vhazwimi Properties (Pty) Limited v Bise Engineering Projects CC (11/22832) [2019] ZAGPJHC 217 (16 May 2019)
The High Court refused leave to amend a plea where the proposed joint-venture defence would rely on an entity the agreement said had no legal personality.
Explore more
