NOT REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
(WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION)
JOHANNESBURG

In the matter between

UNTERSLAK, S I.................................................................Second Plaintiff 

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs now bring an application to amend once again.
This has been opposed in certain respects by the defendants. It is common cause that the following are the amendments which the plaintiffs seek to introduce:

And then:-
"The second defendant accordingly guaranteed the payment to the first and second payments of the amount of R20 million each referred to in subparagraph 20.2 above. Alternatively, to paragraph 27 above, it was an expressed term, alternatively, an applied term, further alternatively, a tacit term of the agreement referred to in paragraph 19, alternatively paragraph 19 above, but the second defendant undertook the liability towards the first and second plaintiffs of a co-principal debtor together with the first defendant for the payment of the first and second plaintiffs of an amount of R20 million each referred to in subparagraph 20.2 above, 27(b). Alternative to paragraph 27 and 27(a) above, it was an expressed term, alternatively applied term, further alternatively a tacit term of the agreement referred to in paragraph 19, alternatively 19(b) above that the second defendant undertook to indemnify the first and second plaintiffs against any loss suffered by the first and second plaintiffs arising out of non-payment by the first defendant to the first and second plaintiffs in an amount of R20 million each referred to in subparagraph 20.1."
It will be immediately apparent that these proposed amendments can scarcely be described as models of lucidity. I was taken through detailed argument by the legal representatives of the parties as to the legal principles involved with regard to the granting of amendments. This much all of us, namely the court and the representatives for the contending side agree: if it is clear that the proposed amendment would result in an excipiable pleading, then the amendment should not be granted.
With regard to the first issue, namely the amendment relating to the so-called assignment, it glares at one that the plaintiffs are not

It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that the proposed 27 of the particulars of claim will be irregular for want of compliance for the provisions of Rule 1 8(3) in that they lack allegations necessary to sustain a cause of action against the second defendant and/or are vague and embarrassing and will prejudice the defendants. I am in agreement with this submission.
Furthermore, the objection is taken to the fact that clearly the plaintiffs are relying on an oral agreement and this, they submit,
notwithstanding the use of words such as 'guarantee' or 'indemnity'
relates to a suretyship agreement which would fall foul of the
provisions of section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act.

The following order is made:
1.	The proposed amendments to which the defendants have made objection, are disallowed.
2.	The plaintiffs are to pay the costs of this application.