FNB v Govsons Investment (7057/21; 22035/15) [2024] ZAGPPHC 23 (15 January 2024)

FNB v Govsons Investment (7057/21; 22035/15) [2024] ZAGPPHC 23 (15 January 2024)

The court held that neither applicant established the necessary grounds for variation under Rule 42(1). In FNB v Govsons Investment, the applicant failed to provide evidence that the original order did not reflect the intention of the court or that it was erroneously sought or granted in the absence of a party affected. The relief granted was competent and foreseeable, and no error in law was demonstrated. In MD Mosimege v RAF, the applicant did not prove a common mistake between the parties regarding the settlement of past medical expenses, nor did the evidence establish the terms of the agreement or mutuality of the error. The discrepancies and lack of corroboration meant the...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 23
Parties
Applicant: FNB; Respondent: Govsons Investment; Applicant: MD Mosimege; Respondent: The Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 January 2024
Case Number
7057/21; 22035/15
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Judgment Delivered After Hearing Unopposed Applications for Variation of Prior Court Orders.
Outcome
Both applications for variation are dismissed.
Judges
K Strydom
Legal Topics
Rule 42 Variation, Default Judgment, Common Mistake, Patent Error or Omission, Rescission of Judgment
Civil Procedure Rule 42 Variation Default Judgment Common Mistake Patent Error or Omission Rescission of Judgment

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FNB

Applicant

Govsons Investment

Respondent

MD Mosimege

Applicant

The Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Judgment Delivered After Hearing Unopposed Applications for Variation of Prior Court Orders.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established grounds for variation of the original court orders under Rule 42(1).
  2. 2 Whether errors by legal practitioners or common mistakes between parties justify rescission or variation of the judgments.
  3. 3 Whether the orders granted reflect the true intention of the court or the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that neither applicant established the necessary grounds for variation under Rule 42(1). In FNB v Govsons Investment, the applicant failed to provide evidence that the original order did not reflect the intention of the court or that it was erroneously sought or granted in the absence of a party affected. The relief granted was competent and foreseeable, and no error in law was demonstrated. In MD Mosimege v RAF, the applicant did not prove a common mistake between the parties regarding the settlement of past medical expenses, nor did the evidence establish the terms of the agreement or mutuality of the error. The discrepancies and lack of corroboration meant the...

Court Disposition

Both applications for variation are dismissed.

Orders

  • In FNB v Govsons Investment (7057/21), the application is dismissed.
  • In MD Mosimege v The Road Accident Fund (22035/15), the application is dismissed.