Coetzer and Others v Coetzer (A85/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 872 (8 November 2022)

Coetzer and Others v Coetzer (A85/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 872 (8 November 2022)

The court found that the appeal order granted on 19 August 2022 contained a patent error, as it failed to set aside the order of the court a quo and substitute it with a dismissal of all plaintiff's claims. Rule 42(1)(b) empowers the court to correct such errors without further proceedings, provided no prejudice is caused and the correction does not affect the merits. The respondent would not be prejudiced, and the correction was in the interests of justice. The order of the court a quo was accordingly set aside and substituted with an order dismissing all plaintiff's claims with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 872
Parties
Appellant: Jacob Erasmus Coetzer; Appellant: Jacon Erasmuns Coetzer N.O.; Appellant: Anneke Coetzer N.O.; Respondent: Anneke Coetzer
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2022
Case Number
A85/19
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Variation of Order
Outcome
Appeal order varied; order of court a quo set aside and substituted with dismissal of all plaintiff's claims with costs.
Judges
Madiba SS, Ndlokovane N, Tlhapi VV
Legal Topics
Variation of Order, Accrual Claim, Trust Property, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Family and Children Variation of Order Accrual Claim Trust Property Costs Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Erasmus Coetzer

Appellant

Jacon Erasmuns Coetzer N.O.

Appellant

Anneke Coetzer N.O.

Appellant

Anneke Coetzer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Variation of Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal order should be varied to correct a patent error in the original order.
  2. 2 Whether the order of the court a quo should be set aside and substituted with a dismissal of all plaintiff's claims.
  3. 3 Whether the correction under Rule 42(1)(b) is appropriate given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appeal order granted on 19 August 2022 contained a patent error, as it failed to set aside the order of the court a quo and substitute it with a dismissal of all plaintiff's claims. Rule 42(1)(b) empowers the court to correct such errors without further proceedings, provided no prejudice is caused and the correction does not affect the merits. The respondent would not be prejudiced, and the correction was in the interests of justice. The order of the court a quo was accordingly set aside and substituted with an order dismissing all plaintiff's claims with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal order varied; order of court a quo set aside and substituted with dismissal of all plaintiff's claims with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'All the plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with costs.'