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

N.H obo E.R.H v Schindlers Lifts SA (Pty) Limited and Another (7914/2018)

N.H obo E.R.H v Schindlers Lifts SA (Pty) Limited and Another (7914/2018) [2020] ZAKZDHC 41 (1 September 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

7914/2018

Judge

Vahed

The court held that the starting point is that a peregrinus should furnish security for costs, and this is unaffected by Magida. The representative capacity of the plaintiff is irrelevant to the obligation to provide security. The plaintiff failed to provide cogent evidence that she or her family could not provide security. The settlement with the second defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff could raise some funds. The first defendant's offer of R350,000 as security was reasonable and within the plaintiff's reach. The court exercised its discretion to order the plaintiff to provide securi…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus Vs Incola
• Judicial Discretion
• Representative Capacity
• Enforcement Of Costs Orders

Zondo v MEC for Health of the Gauteng Provincial Government (25644/2014)

Zondo v MEC for Health of the Gauteng Provincial Government (25644/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 243 (2 September 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

25644/2014

Judge

WHG van der Linde

The court held that the claims for future medical expenses and future loss of earnings are, as established in Van Gool, claims of the minor child and not of the parents. The minor, represented by the plaintiff as guardian, is entitled to claim compensation for patrimonial loss resulting from the alleged negligence. The principle in Van Gool is binding and has not been overruled. Prescription does not affect the minor's claims until a year after majority is attained. The defendant's proposed amendment to introduce a prescription defence is therefore unsustainable and must be refused. The plain…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Damages For Medical Negligence
• Representative Capacity
• Future Medical Expenses
• Future Loss Of Earnings

Bojosi v Bojosi (65646/2011)

Bojosi v Bojosi (65646/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 593 (14 August 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

65646/2011

Judge

TM Makgoka

The court dismissed special pleas of non-joinder and improper citation, and referred prescription to oral evidence to determine whether alleged undertakings interrupted it.

• Prescription Act
• Non Joinder
• Representative Capacity
• Children S Property Rights
• Prescription
• Non-joinder

Director of Public Prosecutions v Schreiber (A169/2008)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Schreiber (A169/2008) [2010] ZAGPPHC 308 (1 April 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A169/2008

Judges

M.F. Legodi, C P Rabie

The court dismissed the state’s application for leave to appeal after holding that the respondent had been charged in a representative capacity and that the appeal points were not questions of law.

• Representative Capacity
• Invalid Plea
• Leave To Appeal
• Charge Sheet Validity
• Remittal For Retrial
• Criminal-procedure

Von Schimper v Monastery Diamond Mining Corporation Ltd (551/2006)

Von Schimper v Monastery Diamond Mining Corporation Ltd (551/2006) [2007] ZAFSHC 24 (9 March 2007)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

551/2006

Judge

C.J. Musi

The court held that the affidavits of the provisional liquidators were irrelevant to the proceedings before it, as the application for costs de bonis propriis was not against the company in liquidation but against individuals acting in a representative capacity. Section 359(1)(a) of the Companies Act only suspends proceedings against the company, not against its directors or attorneys personally. The court found that it had jurisdiction to make a costs order against Van Jaarsveld and STRB, regardless of their residence or business location, as the costs arose from litigation conducted before…

Source excerpt

• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Company Liquidation
• Jurisdiction Of Cost Orders
• Interlocutory Applications
• Representative Capacity
• Notice And Service