case did not necessarily mandate judgment in favor of the defendant because the trial court never addressed whether the wilful and wanton misconduct exception applied. The record is clear that the trial court never actually ruled on defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Indeed, defense counsel asked for such a ruling when the trial court gave her the option of choosing to continue with the trial through an amendment of the pleadings or starting over again with a voluntary dismissal. “The right of a plaintiff to have his case decided on its merits cannot be cut off by what is only formulated, or formulating, in the judge’s mind.” Bytell v. Paul, 173 Ga. App. 83, 84 (325 SE2d 451) (1984); see also Pizza Ring Enterprises v. Mills Mgmt. Sources, 154 Ga. App. 45 (267 SE2d 487) (1980) (<HOLDING>). “[Wjithout an announcement from the trial
holding that a dismissal on limitations grounds is a judgment on the merits holding voluntary dismissal permissible because trial court had not yet reached a decision on the merits holding appeal improper since the dismissal was voluntary holding that a dismissal based on a jurisdictional statute of limitations does not constitute a judgmerit on the merits because a judgment on the merits can only be rendered after a court has jurisdiction holding an appellate court has the discretion to retain jurisdiction to render a decision on the merits of a case notwithstanding the filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal