IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

In the matter between;

and

RULING

BOZALEK. J

During the cross-examination of the plaintiff's first witness yesterday it appeared that the defendant's case as it was being put to the witness was somewhat different to that pleaded. The case stood down a little early so that the defendant coufd be afforded an opportunity to formally seek an amendment to its plea. This morning Mr Mouton, director of the defendant company, and who appears on behalf of the defendant in person, applied for a postponement of the matter so that defendant could amend its plea and file a counterclaim. He tendered the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.

I do not propose to set out precisely what notices or documents must be filed, because it is by no means clear to me exactly what steps defendant may or will take to refashion its case once new attorneys are appointed and consulted.

I wish also to record that granting the postponement should not be understood as indicating that the applicant, defendant, has been granted leave to file a counterclaim, or that each and every proposed amendment which it may seek will be granted. On the other   hand I have indicated to the representatives that I would like to see that the substantive issues between the parties are dealt with on the resumed date, and that neither party stands on procedural points.

1.	The matter is postponed for hearing to 3 December 2008;
2.	Defendant must by no later than 11 November 2008 serve and file whatever notices are necessary in order for it to put its pleaded case in order, before the resumed hearing on 3 December 2008;
3.	The defendant is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by this postponement.
BOZALEK, J