About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAGPPHC 76
|
|
Kretschmer v Broll Property Management (Edms) BPK and Another In re: Kretschmer v Broll Property Management (Edms) 3PK (38798/2006) [2010] ZAGPPHC 76 (30 July 2010)
I
N
DIE NOORD GAUTENG HOE HOF PRETORIA
(REPUBLIEK
VAN SUID-AFRIKA)
SAAKNOMMER:
38798/2006
DATUM:
30/07/2010
In
die saak tussen:
VERONICA
KRETSCHMER Applikant
en
BROLL
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (EDMS) BPK Eerste Respondent (REGISTRAS1ENOMMER
1996/015132/07)
AKHONA-BROLL
PROPERTIES (EDMS) BPK Tweede Respondent (REGISTRASIENOMMER:
1991/004002/07) .
In
re:
Die
saak tussen:
VERONICA
KRETSCHMER Eiseres
en
BROLL
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (EDMS) 3PK Verweerder
(REGISTRASIENOMMER
1996/015132/07)
UITSPRAAK
GOODEY
WR:
[1]
INLEIDING:
1.1
Hierdie is 'n aansoek deur die Eiser as Applikant om voeging van die
Tweede Respondent as Tweede Verweerder in die hoofaksie.
1.2
Die Respondente opponeer die aansoek en hulle opponering kan soos
voig saamgevat word:
1.2.1
Die eis teen die Tweede Respondent het verjaar en sal tot niks lei
nie;
1.2.2
Betekening van die dagvaarding op die Eerste Respondent (wat skynbaar
in dieselfde gebou as die Tweede Respondent is) het
nie verjaring
gestuit nie;
1.2.3
Die Applikant betoog dat ek nou slegs die voeging moet oorweeg terwyl
die Respondente verwag dat ek op die verjaringskwessie
'n bevinding
moet maak, bevind dat die eis teen die Tweede Respondent verjaar het
en die aansoek van die hand moet wys.
[2]
VOEGING:
2.1
Dit is geykte reg dat:
2.1.1
Voeging nie sondermeer geweier word nie;
2.1.2
Voeging ook op gerieflikheidsgronde toegelaat word;
2.1.3
Dat 'n Hof horn op die voegingstadium nie maklik sal inmeng met die
mehete wat deur die verhoorhof beslis moet word nie.
2.2
Beide advokate het uitvoering betoog oor al die aspekte en die Hof
ook met volledige betoogshoofde bygestaan.
2.3
Dit is onnodig om na al die gesag te verwys en kan volstaan word met
die volgende:
2.3.1
In
Stroud
v Steel Engineering Co Ltd & Another
1996 (4) SA 1139
(W) is op
1142C-G
soos
volg bevind:
"There
remains the contention that because the claim is prescribed, it
should not be allowed. I accept that the Court normally
would not
permit an allegation which has no possibility of advancing the
situation of a litigant and can at best serve as basis
for the need
to hear evidence which leads nowhere. Accordingly it would make no
sense to permit a claim which is known to have
prescribed.
But
if the supervening; of prescription is not common cause, the
application for amendment (in casu die aansoek om voeging) is
normally not the proper place to attempt to have that issue decided.
Technically speaking, in fact, prescription is not an issue until it
has been pleaded. I say 'normally' because there may be special
cases, for example where only legal interpretation makes the
difference to facts which are common cause.
However,
except in such special situations, once prescription is not common
cause, the plaintiff should not be deprived of his chance
to put his
claim before the Court because of apparent probabilities at the time
when amendment (in casu die aansoek om voeginp;)
is
considered.
_
Considerations
of
effectiveness
and fairness confirm that propriety.
The present defendant ought to raise its proposed defence
(prescription) in the same way that it would raise any other defence
which becomes appropriate after an amendment is granted. In the
circumstances the defendant should not have opposed the amendment."
(My
onderstreping)
Sien
ook: Rand Staple-Machine Leasing v I.C.I (SA) Ltd
1977 (3) SA 199
(W) in die geheel daarvan, maar veral die gedeelte op 202A-H Consol
Limited Ltd t/a Consol Glass v
Twee
Jonge Gezellen (2)
2005 (6) SA 23
(C) op 39D-G
2
3 2 In
Nedcor
Investment Bank Limited v Visser NO & Others
2002 (4) SA 588
(T)
is op 595B-C en E
soos
volg bevind:
"The
defendants' next attack is that they will be deprived of the defence
of prescription regarding a portion of the plaintiff's
claim. Mr
Strydom submitted that the amendment which is being sought by the
plaintiff is merely to introduce a claim which has
prescribed and
ought not to be allowed. In support of his argument Mr Strydom relied
upon certain authorities. In my view, they
are not relevant at this
juncture. Suffice to say that such authorities can be invoked at an
appropriate juncture in the development
of the proceedings."
"The
proper way to raise the issue of prescription is by way of special
plea and not an interlocutory application for leave
to amend."
2.3.3
In
Caxton
Ltd & Others v Reeva Forman (Pty) Ltd & Another
[1990] ZASCA 47
;
1990 (3) SA
547
(A) is op 565G-i
soos
volg bevind:
"The
correctness of the trial Judge's refusal of the amendment may be open
to debate. Although the decision whether to grant
or refuse an
application to amend a pleading, rests on the discretion of the
Court, this discretion must be exercised with due
regard to certain
basic principles. These principles are well summed up in the judgment
of Caney J in
Trans-Drakensberg
Bank Ltd (Under Judicial Management) v Combined Engineering (Pty) Ltd
& Another
1967 (3) SA 632
(D) at 640H-641C.
in
the portion of the passage referred to, Caney J states (at 641 A):
'Having
already made his case in his pleading, if he wishes to change or add
to this, he must explain the reason and show prima
facie that he has
something deserving of consideration,
a
triable issue
;
he cannot be ailowed to harass his opponent by an amendment which has
no foundation. He cannot place on the record an issue for
which he
has no supporting evidence, where evidence is required, or, save
perhaps in exceptional circumstances, introduce an amendment
which
would make the pleading excipiable.'"
2.3.4
In
Ciba-Geigy
(Pty) Ltd v Lushof Turns (Pty) Ltd
2002 (2) SA 447
(HHA) is op 462 J
tot 463A
soos
volg beslis:
aBlykens
die aangehaalde dicta kan 'triable issue' verstaan word in die sin
van:
(a)
'n geskilpunt wat, indien dit aan die hand van getuienis wat die
applikant in sy aansoek in
die
vooruitstiQ stel
bewys word, lewens-vatbaar of relevant sou wees; of
(b)
'n geskilpunt wat op die waarskynlikhede wat
aldus
in die vooruitsig gestel word
,
bewys sou wees."
(my
onderstreping).
[3]
SLOTSOM:
In
die lig van voormelde is ek van mening dat die aansoek moet slaag.
Gevolglik maak ek die volgende bevel:
"Bedes
1 en 2 van die kennisgewing van mosie word toegestaan."
GOODEY
WR