Baumann v DB Fine Chemicals (Pty) Ltd and Another (Variation) (2024-032290) [2025] ZAGPPHC 432 (9 May 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 432
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Hershensohn
- Case number
- 2024-032290
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Hershensohn
- Case number
- 2024-032290
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the omission of the scale of costs in the original order constituted a patent error or omission as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The omission created ambiguity regarding the costs awarded. The court is empowered to correct such errors to ensure clarity and proper execution of its orders. Accordingly, the order was varied to specify that the costs awarded in terms of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the original order are to be party and party costs on scale 'B'.
Court disposition
Order varied to specify the scale of costs awarded.
Orders
- The costs awarded in terms of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order granted on 6 May 2025 are to be party and party costs on scale 'B'.
02
Material facts
Parties
Werner Baumann
Applicant Counsel: Adv. N du PlessisDB Fine Chemicals (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Adv. L Van GassDion Baumann
Respondent Counsel: Adv. L Van Gass03
Procedural history
Posture
Variation Application / Variation of Previous Judgment Under Rule 42(1)(b)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the original order omitted specification of the scale of costs awarded to the parties.
- 02
Whether the omission constitutes a patent error or omission justifying variation under Rule 42(1)(b).
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The excipient submits that the original judgment failed to specify the scale of costs, resulting in ambiguity and a patent omission. The applicant requests that the order be varied to clarify the costs awarded, relying on Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
- Respondent
- The respondents do not oppose the application for variation, acknowledging that the omission of the costs scale in the original order constitutes a patent error. They accept that the order should be amended to specify party and party costs on scale 'B'.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court
A court may mero motu rescind or vary an order in which there is an ambiguity, or a patent error or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error or omission.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the omission of the scale of costs in the original order constituted a patent error or omission as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The omission created ambiguity regarding the costs awarded. The court is empowered to correct such errors to ensure clarity and proper execution of its orders. Accordingly, the order was varied to specify that the costs awarded in terms of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the original order are to be party and party costs on scale 'B'.
Obiter and limits
- The judgment was handed down electronically and is deemed delivered at 10h00 on 9 May 2025.
- Variation orders under Rule 42(1)(b) are limited to correcting patent errors, ambiguities, or omissions and do not permit substantive changes beyond such corrections.
Court disposition
Order varied to specify the scale of costs awarded.
- The costs awarded in terms of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order granted on 6 May 2025 are to be party and party costs on scale 'B'.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Order
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2024-032290
1. REPORTABLE: YES/ NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
3. REVISED: YES / NO
DATE: 09/5/2025
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE:
In the matter between:
WERNER
BAUMANN
EXCIPIENT
and
DB FINE CHEMICALS (PTY) LTD
1ST RESPONDENT
DION
BAUMANN
2ND
RESPONDENT
In Re:
DB FINE CHEMICALS (PTY) LTD
1ST
PLAINTIFF
DION
BAUMANN
2ND
PLAINTIFF
WERNER
BAUMANN
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
HERSHENSOHN AJ
[1] This is a variation order envisaged in terms of Rule 42(1) (b) of the Uniform Rules of Court relating to the judgment I handed down electronically, by circulation to the parties' legal representatives on 6 May 2025.
[2] The Rule provides that the court may, in addition to any other powers it may have, mero motu rescind or vary an order in which there is an ambiguity, or a patent error or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error or omission.[1]
[3] On 7 May 2025, it came to my attention that the order contained in the judgement, did not include the scale of costs awarded to the parties.
[4] In correcting the order of the 6 May 2025 in terms of Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court, I amend the order to read as follows:
4.1. The costs awarded in terms of paragraphs 3 and 4 of my order granted on 6 May 2025 are to be party and party costs on scale “B”.
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
This Judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ and or parties’ representatives by email and by being uploaded to CaseLines. The date and time for the hand down is deemed to be 10h00 on this 9th day of May 2025.
Appearances
Counsel for the Excipient: Adv. N du Plessis instructed by AH Stander & Agenbag Inc Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. L Van Gass Instructed by Van Greunen and Associates Inc Date of Hearing: 24 April 2025 Date of Amendment: 9 May 2025
[1] Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.