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
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPPHC 673
|
|
Oosthuizen N.O and Another v Glossop and Another (73282/2014) [2022] ZAGPPHC 673 (30 August 2022)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 73282/2014
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED
30
August 2022
In
the matter between:
THOMAS
JACOBUS OOSTHUIZEN N. O
1
ST
APPLICANT/DEFENDANT
MAGDALENA
JOHANNA SNYMAN
2
ND
APPLICANT/DEFENDANT
and
INGRID
ELISABETH GLOSSOP 1ST
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
CLIVE
WARD GRANVILLE 2ND
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
JUDGMENT
MANAMELA
AJ (Ms)
1.
The Applicant
[Defendant] seeks a declaratory order against the Respondent
[Plaintiff] in the following terms: -
1.
Declaring
service of a “Notice of intention to Amend” as well as
service of the amended particulars of claim by the
Respondent [the
Plaintiff] on 4 August 2021 to constitute an irregular step.
2.
Setting aside
the ‘Notice of intention to amend’ as well as the
‘Amended Particulars of claim’.
3.
Costs on the
scale of attorney and client.
4.
Further
and/or alternative relief.
2.
This application is
opposed, and the Respondent is self-represented.
3.
The amendment to the
particulars of claim were suctioned by an order made by van Heerden
AJ on 1 March 2021, the relevant parts
of which are in paragraph 3
and 4 of the Order, which states:
“
3.
The Respondents/Plaintiffs are to serve and file their Notice of
Intention to Amend the undated particulars of claim issued on
3
October 2014 so as to reflect the joinder of the Second Respondent/
Second Defendant within 10 days hereof, but no later than
15 March
2021.
4
Should no objection to the proposed amendments be received by the
Respondents/Plaintiffs
within 10 days thereof, by no later than 10
March 2021, they are to effect their amendments within 10 days, by no
later than 15
April 2021”.
3.
The Applicant raised
an objection against the amendment of the particulars of claim files
in terms of paragraph 3 of the van Heerden
AJ Order, which objection
was raised timeously. Notwithstanding the objection, the
Respondent/Plaintiff proceeded to file the amended
particulars of
claim instead of invoking the provisions of Rule 28(4).
4.
Being a
self-represented litigant, the Respondent/Plaintiff continues to
incur exorbitant legal cost order resulting from technical
mistakes
that he is making. In his own approach he states that has been trying
to get direction from the court, his health has
deteriorated, and
cannot afford.
5.
The
Respondent/Plaintiff concedes after a clear explanation of the
process by the court that, he now knows what he should have done
and
he is now pleading for leniency from the court.
6.
I deliberately found
that it would be another waste of time and money, if an order is made
along the lines that the Respondent/Plaintiff
should file application
for leave to amend, as it will still be defective and/or incorporate
defective amended particulars of claim,
which will most likely be
expiable and/or successfully opposed.
ORDER
7.
The following order
is made:
1.
The “Notice
of intention to Amend” as well as service of the amended
particulars of claim by the Respondent [the Plaintiff]
on 4 August
2021 constitute an irregular step and are set-aside.
2.
The timeframe
for service and filing of the ‘Notice of intention to amend’
as set-out in the Order granted by van Heerden
AJ dated 1 March 2021
is extended by 10 days from date hereof, respectively, within which
the Respondent/Plaintiff is directed
to files its new notice to of
intention to amend, being by no later than 9 September 2022, which
must be compliant with the Rules
of the and be issued or checked by a
legal practitioner’.
3.
Should no
objection to the proposed new amendments be received by the
Respondents/Plaintiffs within 10 days thereof, by no later
than 23
September 2022, the Respondents/Plaintiffs are to effect their
amendments within 10 days, by no later than 10 October 2022”.
4.
In the event
that the Applicant persists with the objection, the
Respondents/Plaintiffs, shall be deemed to have been granted leave
to
amend, as contemplated in Rule 28(4), which order is granted in terms
of Rule 28(10).
5.
Costs are in
the cause.
P
N MANAMELA
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Date
of hearing: 25
August 2022
Judgment
delivered: 30
August 2022
APPEARANCES:
Counsels
for the Applicants/Defendants: Adv.
G Jacobs
Attorneys
for the Applicants/Defendants: University
of Pretoria
Law
Clinic
For
the Respondents/Plaintiffs:
In person