China Construction Bank Corporation Johannesburg Branch v Gobel Agentskappe CC and Others (52295/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 297 (2 May 2018)
The court found that the original costs order contained a patent error, as it incorrectly identified the third defendant as the party responsible for costs when, in fact, the application for postponement was brought by the first, second, and fourth to seventh defendants. The court held that this error falls within...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] ZAGPPHC 297
- Parties
- Plaintiff: China Construction Bank Corporation Johannesburg Branch; Defendant: Gobel Agentskappe CC; Defendant: Peter Hermann Gobel; Defendant: Autohaus Gobel Northcliff (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Erf 7178 Hatfield CC; Defendant: General Helpline CC; Defendant: Quick Leap Investments 328 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Red Coral Investments (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Sunset Bay Trading 327 (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 52295/2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Procedure / Variation of Costs Order
- Outcome
- The costs order is varied to correct the parties liable for payment.
- Judges
- AC Basson
- Legal Topics
- Variation of Order, Costs Award, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
China Construction Bank Corporation Johannesburg Branch
Plaintiff
Gobel Agentskappe CC
Defendant
Peter Hermann Gobel
Defendant
Autohaus Gobel Northcliff (Pty) Ltd
Defendant
Erf 7178 Hatfield CC
Defendant
General Helpline CC
Defendant
Quick Leap Investments 328 (Pty) Ltd
Defendant
Red Coral Investments (Pty) Ltd
Defendant
Sunset Bay Trading 327 (Pty) Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Variation of Costs Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the original costs order contained a patent error regarding the parties liable for costs.
- 2 Whether the court may vary the order under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the original costs order contained a patent error, as it incorrectly identified the third defendant as the party responsible for costs when, in fact, the application for postponement was brought by the first, second, and fourth to seventh defendants. The court held that this error falls within the scope of Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, which permits the court to vary an order containing a patent error. Accordingly, the order was varied to direct the first, second, and fifth defendants to pay the costs jointly and severally, including the costs of two counsel.
Court Disposition
The costs order is varied to correct the parties liable for payment.
Orders
- The first, second and fifth defendants are ordered to pay the costs jointly and severally. Costs to include the cost of two counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 52295/2015
2/5/2018
Not reportable
Not of interest to other judges
Revised.
In the matter between:
CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORPORATION
JOHANNESBURG BRANCH Plaintiff
and
GOBEL AGENTSKAPPE CC 1st Defendant
PETER HERMANN GOBEL 2nd Defendant
AUTOHAUS GOBEL NORTHCLIFF (PTY) LTD 3rd Defendant
ERF 7178 HATFIELD CC 4th Defendant
GENERAL HELPLINE CC 5th Defendant
QUICK LEAP INVESTMENTS 328 (PTY) LTD 6th Defendant
RED CORAL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD 7th Defendant
SUNSET BAY TRADING 327 (PTY) LTD 8th Defendant
JUDGMENT: VARIATION: POSTPONEMENT APPLICATION
AC BASSON, J
[1] On 31 July 2017 this Court refused an application for postponement brought by the first, second and fifth defendants. The application
was dismissed ordering the third defendant to pay the costs occasioned by the postponement including the costs of two counsel.
[2] It has since been brought to my attention that this order contains a patent error. It was the first. second and fourth to seventh
defendants who brought the application to postpone and not the third defendant. Furthermore, the first, second and fifth defendants should have been directed to pay the costs, jointly and severally. This is a patent error as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court and one which this court may vary upon the application of any party affected thereby.
[3] In the event, paragraph two of the order in respect of costs is varied as follows:
"Order
[2] The first, second and fifth defendants are ordered to pay the costs jointly and severally. Costs to include the cost of two counsel."
________________________
AC BASSON
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT