HIGH COURT (BISHO)

CASE N O . 4 1 6 / 9 6 In t h e m a t t e r b e t w e e n :

TRAIMSEC (PTY) LTD

APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF

and

THE PREMIER OF THE PROVINCE OF THE EASTERN CAPE RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

EBRAHIM J : 1. This is an application by Plaintiff ( A p p l i c a n t ) in t e r m s of Rule 2 8 of t h e High C o u r t Rules f o r t h e a m e n d m e n t of Plaintiff's particulars of c l a i m . Plaintiff

seeks t o delete paragraphs 5 & 6 of t h e particulars of claim and t o s u b s t i t u t e in its stead paragraphs 5 & 6 as set o u t in Plaintiff's Notice of Intention t o A m e n d dated 2 4 November 1 9 9 7 . Plaintiff also seeks certain additional

a m e n d m e n t s t o p a r a g r a p h s 8, 9, 1 0 , 1 3, 1 5 & 1 7 of t h e particulars of claim and t h e s e are also set o u t in t h e aforesaid Notice of A m e n d m e n t .

2.

D e f e n d a n t (Respondent) has g i v e n notice of o b j e c t i o n t o t h e

proposed In

a m e n d m e n t s , t h e r e b y n e c e s s i t a t i n g t h e instant application by Plaintiff.

the Notice of O b j e c t i o n D e f e n d a n t has indicated t h a t there are t h r e e g r o u n d s of o b j e c t i o n , n a m e l y : (1) t h e a m e n d m e n t seeks t o i n t r o d u c e a n e w cause of a c t i o n ;

2

(2)

if t h e a m e n d m e n t is a l l o w e d it will cause t h e D e f e n d a n t t o s u f f e r prejudice w h i c h c a n n o t be c u r e d by a c o s t s order; and

(3)

it seeks t o resuscitate a cause of action w h i c h w o u l d o t h e r w i s e have become prescribed.

It is trite t h a t t h e o n u s is on t h e p a r t y seeking t h e a m e n d m e n t , in this case the Plaintiff, t o establish t h a t the o t h e r p a r t y , n a m e l y , the D e f e n d a n t , w i l l not be prejudiced by it. See: Euroshipping of Agriculture & Others 1979 (2) SA 1072 Corporation (C) of Monrovia v Min

The

principles

governing

the

granting

of

an

amendment

have

been

s u m m a r i s e d by W h i t e J in Commercial NO 1995 (2) SA 73 (TkGD) At 77F-I.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Union Assurance

Co Ltd v

Waymark

These are t h e f o l l o w i n g :

T h e C o u r t has a d i s c r e t i o n w h e t h e r t o g r a n t or refuse an a m e n d m e n t . An amendment cannot be g r a n t e d f o r t h e mere a s k i n g ; facie some explanation must be offered therefor. T h e a p p l i c a n t m u s t s h o w t h a t prima consideration, a triable issue'. T h e m o d e r n t e n d e n c y lies in f a v o u r o f a n a m e n d m e n t ventilation of the dispute b e t w e e n the parties'. T h e p a r t y s e e k i n g t h e a m e n d m e n t m u s t n o t b e mala The amendment must not 'cause an injustice to compensated by costs'. T h e a m e n d m e n t should not be refused simply to punish the applicant for neglect. A m e r e l o s s o f ( t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f g a i n i n g ) t i m e is n o r e a s o n , in i t s e l f , f o r r e f u s i n g t h e application. If t h e a m e n d m e n t is n o t s o u g h t t i m e o u s l y , s o m e r e a s o n m u s t b e g i v e n f o r t h e d e l a y . fide. the other side which cannot be if s u c h 'facilitates the proper the a m e n d m e n t 'has s o m e t h i n g deserving of

The g r a n t i n g or refusal of an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a m e n d m e n t is in t h e d i s c r e t i o n of the c o u r t , w h i c h t o be exercised judicially in t h e light of all f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e case. See: GMF Kontrakteurs Pretoria City Council 1978 (2) SA 219 (T) (Edms) Bpk & Ander v

3

One of t h e o b j e c t i o n s raised by D e f e n d a n t is t h a t the g r a n t i n g of t h e a m e n d m e n t will i n t r o d u c e a n e w cause of a c t i o n . The a p p r o a c h of the

c o u r t s in this regard has been generally not t o g r a n t s u c h a m e n d m e n t s . See: Evins v Shield Insurance Safety and Security Co Ltd 1980 (2) SA 814 (AD) and Minister (AD) of

v Molutsi

and Another

1996 (4) SA 72

The s e c o n d o b j e c t i o n raised by D e f e n d a n t is t h a t t h e a m e n d m e n t will have the e f f e c t of r e s u s c i t a t i n g a claim w h i c h has already b e c o m e p r e s c r i b e d .

Mr C h e m a l y , f o r Plaintiff, a r g u e d t h a t this is not t h e case. He c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e a m e n d m e n t clarifies a pleading w h i c h i n s u f f i c i e n t l y or i m p e r f e c t l y set o u t the original cause of a c t i o n and s h o u l d c o n s e q u e n t l y be a l l o w e d . referred me t o Sasol Industries Engineering 473G-H, Insurance Holdings and (Pty) Ltd t/a L.H. (Pty) Ltd t/a Sasol 1992 1 v Electrical (4) SA 466 He has Repair at

Marthinusen

(WLD)

w h i c h is based on t h e A p p e a l C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g in Co Ltd v Maluleka 1956 (2) SA 273 (AD);

Trans-African Erol

See also:

(Pty) Ltd v Sword

Contractors

CC 1996 (3) SA 1016 at

1021A-D

1021G-H

Mr S c h o e m a n , for D e f e n d a n t , c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e facta probanda

necessary

t o p r o v e t h e u n a m e n d e d claim and t h o s e n e c e s s a r y t o p r o v e the claim in its a m e n d e d f o r m differs s u b s t a n t i a l l y and is i n d i c a t i v e of t h e f a c t t h a t it w o u l d p r o v e t w o d i f f e r e n t causes of a c t i o n .

4

9.

Mr C h e m a l y ' s reply is t h a t the t e s t w h e t h e r p r e s c r i p t i o n has been i n t e r r u p t e d is w h e t h e r or n o t t h e a m e n d e d cause of a c t i o n seeks t o e n f o r c e s u b s t a n t i a l l y the same right. Trollip J A o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e of t h e claim rather than the form thereof should be considered See: in d e t e r m i n i n g Neon and Cold whether Cathode Sea

p r e s c r i p t i o n has been i n t e r r u p t e d or n o t . Illuminations Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Ephron (Pty) Ltd v Elliot

1978 (1) SA 463

(AD) and Wavecrest

1995 (4) SA 596

(SECLD)

10.

Mr S c h o e m a n , it m u s t be s t a t e d , did not seek t o persuade t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e o b j e c t i o n on t h e basis of p r e s c r i p t i o n w a s being relied on v e r y s t r o n g l y .

1 1.

Even if t h e a m e n d m e n t has t h e e f f e c t of i n t r o d u c i n g a n e w cause of a c t i o n , and in m y v i e w it does n o t , it w o u l d n o t preclude D e f e n d a n t f r o m still relying on t h e d e f e n c e of p r e s c r i p t i o n ; (See t h e Wavecrest case at it is o p e n t o D e f e n d a n t t o do so in a plea.

598H)

It s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of a n e w cause of a c t i o n w i l l not have any e f f e c t on t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n of p r e s c r i p t i o n in r e s p e c t of the original cause of a c t i o n . See: Cordier and 533C v Cordier 1984 (94) SA 524 (C) @ 532G-H

1 2.

There are t w o issues of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The issue of p r e s c r i p t i o n has not been raised in D e f e n d a n t ' s A f f i d a v i t in t e r m s of Rule 3 2 t e n d e r e d in o p p o s i t i o n t o Plaintiff's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t . In a d d i t i o n , prior t o the hearing

5

of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , D e f e n d a n t paid an a m o u n t of R73 11 5,1 2 t o Plaintiff in r e s p e c t of its c l a i m . m a y v e r y w e l l have been i n t e r r u p t e d . Consequently, prescription

13.

In Stroud

v Steel Engineering

Co Ltd and Another

1996 (4) SA 1139

(WLD)

F l e m m i n g DJP said at
'There I accept advancing which to have for leads remains that the contention the Court

1142C-F:
that because would not the claim permit make place is not cases, common cause, because an for serve is prescribed, an allegation as basis is not attempt issue example cause. the plaintiff of apparent and defence appropriate until no sense to it should which has for the need a claim cause, that been except not legal have only not be allowed. of known decided. I say interpretation in such at the that is in the same time way special of his when propriety. that granted'. evidence is application

normally of a litigant Accordingly

no possibility to hear which the issue pleaded.

the situation nowhere. is prescribed. speaking, because the difference once to put his

and can at best it would the proper

to permit common to where However, should fairness

But if the supervening normally in there to claim fact, may facts before ought not prescription be special which is not the to raise which are common Court

of prescription

amendment

Technically 'normally' makes situations, chance amendment The present it would

it has

prescription

be deprived

probabilities

is considered. defendant any other raise

Considerations defence

of effectiveness becomes

confirm

its proposed

(prescription) after

an amendment

1 4.

S t r a t f o r d J in Macduff Investment
'My practice applying which was could

and Co. (In Liquidation) 1923 TPD 310 said:
to amend or unless

v Johannesburg

Consolidated

Co. Ltd
has a/ways acting not mala

been fide,

to give so that

leave

I have done

been some

satisfied injury

that to his

the

party

by his blunder

he has otherwise'.

opponent

be compensated

for by costs

15.

It has been said in a n u m b e r of m a t t e r s t h a t t h e aim in a l l o w i n g a m e n d m e n t s t o pleadings is t o do j u s t i c e b e t w e e n parties by d e c i d i n g t h e real issues between them. See: Trans-Drankensberg Engineering Bank Ltd (Under Judicial

Management)

v Combined

(Pty) Ltd and Another

1967 (3) SA

633 (D & CLD)

6

The m o d e r n t e n d e n c y it w a s said in 1 9 3 5 already (See: Rosenberg

v Bitcom

1935 WLD 115) w a s in f a v o u r of an a m e n d m e n t w h e n e v e r s u c h a m e n d m e n t facilitates t h e proper v e n t i l a t i o n of a d i s p u t e b e t w e e n the parties. f u r t h e r : JR Janisch (Pty) Ltd v WM Spilhaus & Co (WP) (Pty) Ltd See

(Supra).

In m y v i e w , even if the a m e n d m e n t m a y have the e f f e c t of i n t r o d u c i n g a n e w cause of a c t i o n , w h i c h I am n o t c o n v i n c e d it d o e s , I am n e v e r t h e l e s s d i s p o s e d t o g r a n t i n g t h e a m e n d m e n t . I c o n s i d e r t h a t the a m e n d m e n t seeks t o p e r f e c t a claim w h i c h has been i m p e r f e c t l y pleaded p r e v i o u s l y , as s t a t e d in t h e Sasol case (supra). A s I have s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y t h e issue w h e t h e r the

a m e n d e d cause of a c t i o n is prescribed or n o t can still be raised by t h e D e f e n d a n t by w a y of a Special Plea.

I d e e m it necessary t h a t t h e issue of p r e s c r i p t i o n be p r o p e r l y and fully c a n v a s s e d and the g r a n t i n g of t h e a m e n d m e n t does n o t , in m y preclude t h i s . view,

It w i l l also a f f o r d Plaintiff t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of being able t o

p r o v e w h e t h e r p r e s c r i p t i o n has been i n t e r r u p t e d or n o t .

I a m also of the v i e w t h a t Plaintiff has d i s c h a r g e d o n u s of s h o w i n g t h a t D e f e n d a n t will not be prejudiced or suffer an injustice w h i c h c a n n o t be remedied by an order f o r c o s t s . been mala fide. I am n o t p e r s u a d e d t h a t t h e Plaintiff has

It is t o t h e b e n e f i t of b o t h parties t h a t t h e issues in d i s p u t e

b e t w e e n t h e m be p r o p e r l y v e n t i l a t e d before a c o u r t for its decision t h e r e o n .

7

19.

In regard t o the issue of c o s t s , I am not persuaded by Mr

Chemaly's

contention that Defendant's objection to the proposed amendments w a s unreasonable. It is s o , t h a t t h e Notice of O b j e c t i o n is sparse, t o say the

least, and could have been more detailed in o u t l i n i n g t h e o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e a m e n d m e n t s being s o u g h t . But, I do n o t d e e m this t o be s u f f i c i e n t reason Plaintiff is seeking an indulgence a n d , pleaded

t o a w a r d c o s t s against D e f e n d a n t .

since it seeks t o p e r f e c t a claim w h i c h has been i m p e r f e c t l y

p r e v i o u s l y , it has t o be held responsible for t h e c o s t s o c c a s i o n e d t h e r e b y .

20.

In the c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e order I make is t h e f o l l o w i n g : (a) The a m e n d m e n t s sought by Plaintiff in t e r m s of the and Notice of

A m e n d m e n t d a t e d 2 4 N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 7 are g r a n t e d ; (b)

Plaintiff is t o pay the c o s t s of t h e A p p l i c a t i o n including D e f e n d a n t ' s o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e application as w e l l as t h e w a s t e d c o s t s o c c a s i o n e d by t h e a m e n d m e n t s .

Y EBRAHIM— J U D G E OF THE HIGH COURT (BISHO)

Date:

16 February 1 9 9 8