IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
In the matter between:
BOOMPIES KITCHEN (PTY) LTD
and
CENTLEC (SOC) LTD
1
Not reportable
Case no: 3210/2022
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
Neutral citation: Boompies Kitchen (Pty) Ltd v Centlec (Soc) Ltd (3210/2022) [2026)
ZAFSHC 96 (13 March 2026)
Coram: MOLITSOANE J
Heard:
Delivered:
20 February 2026
13 March 2026
Summary : Locus standi - misdescription of an entity - whether such
misdescription affects the standing of a party.
2
ORDER
1 The objection to the locus standi of the plaintiff is dismissed.
2 The defendant shall bear the costs of the application which shall include the costs
of counsel on scale B.
JUDGMENT
Molitsoane J
[1] The plaintiff instituted a delictual claim against the defendant for damages. The
claim arises out of an alleged legal duty the defendant owes the plaintiff. At this stage the
court is seized with the locus standi of the plaintiff and by agreement, the issue of
locus standi was argued separately in terms of Uniform rule 33(4). The challenge of the
standing of the plaintiff was not raised in the usual manner by way of an exception or a
special plea. In its plea, the defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff as to
its existence. Since this denial went against the standing of the plaintiff, it became
imperative for the plaintiff to deal with its standing before proceeding to the merits of the
main case.
[2] The principle of locus standi is iudicio essentially relates to the right or legal
capacity of a party to sue or be sued. In Four Wheel Drive Accessory Distributors CC and
Rattan NO, 1 the court said the following on the question of locus standi:
'The logical starting point is locus standi - weather in the circumstances the plaintiff had an interest
in relief claimed, which entitled it to bring the action. Generally, the requirements for local standard
are these. The plaintiff must have an adequate interest in the subject matter of the litigation, usually
described as a direct interest in their relief sought; the interest must not be too remote; the interest
must be an actual, not abstract or academic; and it must be a current interest and not a
hypothetical one. The duty to allege and prove locus standi rests on the party institute the
proceedings.
The rule that only a person who has a direct interest in their relief sort can claim a remedy, is no
1 Four Wheel Drive Accessory Distributors CC v Rattan NO [2018) ZASCA 124; 2019 (3) SA 451 (SCA)
paras 7 and 8.
3
more clearly expressed than in the judgment of Innes CJ in Dalrymple:
"The general rule of our law is that no man can sue in respect of a wrongful act unless it constitutes
a breach of a duty owed to him by the wrongdoer, or unless it causes him some damage in law".'
[3] In Firm-O-Sea/ CC v Prinsloo & Van Eeden Inc and Another,2 the court also said
the following regarding standing:
'Standing is thus not just a procedural question, it is also a question of substance, concerning as
it does the sufficiency of a litigant's interest in the proceedings. The sufficiency of the interest
depends on the particular facts in any given situation. The real inquiry being whether the events
constitute a wrong as against the litigant.'.
[4] The plaintiff called a single witness, Mr Charlie . His testimony boils down to the
fact that he is the founding member of the plaintiff, hence he testified that he was the
owner of the plaintiff. The evidence reveals that the plaintiff is cited in these proceedings
as Boompies Kitchen (Pty) Ltd. However, a registration certificate issued by the
Commissioner of Companies and Intellectual Property Commissions has issued such
certificate to an entity known as Boompies Trading Company, registration number
2015/408607/07 . This certificate has listed the postal and registered address of Boompies
Tradir:ig Company as 688 Ngalo St Rocklands, Bloemfontein, which address resembles
that of the plaintiff in these proceedings. Mr Charlie is also listed as an 'active/director' of
Boompies Trading Company.
[5] The defendant disputes the existence of the plaintiff and further that it carries on
business of a restaurant at 688 Ngalo St, Rocklands, Bloemfontein. In my view the
difference in the names which appear on the amended particulars of claim, namely,
Boompies Kitchen (Pty) Ltd and those which appear in the registration certificate,
Boompies Trading Company do not necessarily disprove the testimony of Mr Charlie. It is
Boompies Trading Company do not necessarily disprove the testimony of Mr Charlie. It is
undisputed that the registration number of Boompies Trading Company is
2015/408607/07 . When the plaintiff instituted an urgent interdict application in this Court
under case number 415/2025 against the defendant, it was cited as Boompies Kitchen
(Pty) Ltd, with the same registration number as that of Boompies Trading. The relief
sought in the interdict emanated from the decision of the defendant to deprive the plaintiff
2 Firm-O-Sea/ CC v Prinsloo & Van Eeden Inc and Another (2023] ZASCA 107; 2024 (6) SA 52 (SCA)
para 6.
4
of electricity by removing an electricity meter box. In these proceedings, damages are
sought on the deprivation of electricity which prompted the launching of the urgent
application.
[6] It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that the use of 'Boompies Kitchen (Ply)
Ltd' is not a misdescription of the plaintiff in the pleadings as the plaintiff had been using
the same name for the past 5 years in litigation between the parties. It is further submitted
that the plaintiff seeks to 'sneak an amendment of the parties without following proper
procedure'. I disagree with these contentions.
[7] The undisputed evidence of Mr Charlie is that there was a misdescription of the
plaintiff in the particulars of claim. This evidence was unchallenged during the hearing
before me as Mr Charlie was not cross examined and his evidence thus remains
undisputed. Misdescription may point to an error as in this case and does not necessarily
affect the standing of a party in the proceedings. The court in HUV Cape Spice v Hotspice
Sauces CC,3 said the following:
'In my view the contentions on behalf of the respondent are based on a fallacy. The description
of a party to a suit does not immutably determine the nature and identity of a party. The law
reports are replete with instances where the incorrect description of a party was allowed, in the
absence of prejudice to other parties involved, to be changed to reflect the true state of affairs.
See for instance, Four Tower Investments (Pty) Ltd v Andre's Motors 2005 (3) SA 39 (NPD). In
an action in a magistrates' court which went on appeal to the High Court, the plaintiff was cited
in the summons as a company. Shortly before the hearing of the appeal, it was established that
the plaintiff was in fact a close corporation . The plaintiff then asked for an amendment on appeal
to change the citation of the plaintiff from that of a company, to a close corporation. The
to change the citation of the plaintiff from that of a company, to a close corporation. The
defendant resisted the application for the amendment on the basis that since the plaintiff as cited
was a non-existent entity, the summons was a nullity and that in any event, the service of the
summons, not having been issued and served at the instance of the plaintiff as a close
corporation, even if the summons were not a nullity, did not interrupt prescription. On the
3 HUV Cape Spice v Hotspice Sauces CC (2011] ZAWCHC 218.
5
evidence which showed that it was a close corporation which had acted throughout, and that
the citation was in fact nothing but a misdescription of the plaintiff, the amendment was allowed.
At 4 7E it was held that:
" ... if the citation of a party is nothing more than a misdescription, it should not matter whether
the incorrect citation happens on the face of it to refer to a non-existing entity or indeed to an
existing but uninvolved entity".'
[8] Having regard to the evidence before me including the order of Van Zyl J, and the
relief sought in the interdict together with the allegations in the proceedings before me, I
am satisfied that the plaintiff is the true party in these proceedings and has the necessary
capacity to litigate. In its particulars of claim, the plaintiff pleaded as follows:
(a) The defendant is an electricity utility entity which has its objective, the
development, operations and maintenance of the electricity distribution system in the
jurisdiction of the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality.
(b) . At all relevant times, the defendant had a legal duty to:
(i) within its administrative and technical capacity efficiently and uninterruptedly
supply electricity to the populace of Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality including the
premises at which the plaintiff operates its business as set out above by virtue of the
relevant loss and the agreement the defendant has with MA Charlie; and
(ii) ensure that the electricity supply to the premises at which the plaintiff operates
business is not interrupted and / or discontinued irregularly and / or unlawfully end / or
without legal
[9] The defendant in its plea admitted the above allegations and thus confirmed that
it had a legal duty towards the plaintiff to supply it with uninterrupted electricity. It is
because of an alleged breach of this duty that the plaintiff instituted these proceedings.
This court is not seized with the question of whether the plaintiff would ultimately
This court is not seized with the question of whether the plaintiff would ultimately
succeed or not. What the particulars of claim and the plea thereto demonstrate is that
the plaintiff has direct and substantial interest in the relief it seeks. For these reasons, it
has the necessary locus standi to bring these proceedings.
[1 OJ I accordingly order as follows:
6
1 The objection to the locus standi of the plaintiff is dismissed.
2 The defendant shall bear the costs of the application which shall include the costs
of counsel on scale B.
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
For the plaintiff:
Instructed by:
For the defendant:
Instructed by:
MS Mazibuko
Mazibuko and Wesi Incorporated,
Bloemfontein
Z Nyezi
Rampai Attorneys,
Bloemfontein.
7