The applicant was the registered proprietor of a patent. It instituted action against the first respondent, alleging that its patent had been infringed. That matter was pending. In the present application, the applicant sought an amendment of the patent. In opposing the amendment, the respondent averred that the patentee had failed to provide full reasons for theamendment; that the amendment sought did not comply with section 51(6) and (7) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978;and that the court should exercise its discretion to refuse the amendment sought on the basis that the patentee had procrastinated or delayed culpably, in bringing the amendment application and had acted mala fide in seeking to enforce the patent in the motion proceedings. Held ­ There is no statutory duty or obligation on a patentee to provide reasons for seeking an amendment to a patent in circumstances, as in this case, where revocation proceedings relating to the patent are pending. The general rule in applications of this nature is that an amendment will usually be permitted unless the conduct of the patentee has been such that the court, in the exercise of its discretion, considers that the amendment should be refused. Having regard to the grounds of opposition raised by the respondent, the Court found that it had not justified its opposition to the amendment. The application succeeded