Case Law[2025] ZAGPJHC 1103South Africa
Mathevula v Willow Crest Motors CC (131977/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1103 (27 October 2025)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)
27 October 2025
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 1103
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Mathevula v Willow Crest Motors CC (131977/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1103 (27 October 2025)
Mathevula v Willow Crest Motors CC (131977/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1103 (27 October 2025)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_1103.html
sino date 27 October 2025
# IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
# GAUTENG LOCAL
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
GAUTENG LOCAL
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 131977/2023
DATE
:
2025-10-27
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED
DATE:
27 October 2025
In the matter between
MUSHE
MATHEVULA
Plaintiff
and
WILLOW CREST MOTORS
CC
Defendant
JUDGMENT
EX TEMPORE
WILSON
J
: T
he defendant took
exception to a pleading filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff
gave notice of his intention to amend in response
to the exception.
The defendant objected to the notice of intention to amend.
The
ordinary course in response to the objection would be to bring an
application for leave to amend. Instead of doing that,
for
reasons best known to himself, the plaintiff decided to bring an
application to strike the exception out.
There
is no basis in law for such a manoeuvre, which seems to me to be
aimed solely at avoiding what the plaintiff must accept is
a
meritorious exception. The application is an abuse of process
and will be dismissed.
I
accordingly make the following order:
[1]
The application is dismissed.
[2]
Each party will pay their own costs.
WILSON J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
27 October 2025
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Matshikwe v Matshikwe and Others (2024/056253) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1124 (6 November 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 1124High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Mathebula v S (A235/16) [2025] ZAGPJHC 902 (29 August 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 902High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Mathebula v Firstrand Auto Receivables (RF) Ltd (22/12536) [2022] ZAGPJHC 800 (18 October 2022)
[2022] ZAGPJHC 800High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Matshikiri v Road Accident Fund (2024/015364) [2026] ZAGPJHC 3 (5 January 2026)
[2026] ZAGPJHC 3High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Mathe v Hoya Lens South Africa (2024/055209) [2025] ZAGPJHC 891 (5 September 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 891High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar