Hotel Slots (Pty) Ltd and Another v Premier of the North-West (1187/97) [2000] ZANWHC 4 (16 February 2000)

Hotel Slots (Pty) Ltd and Another v Premier of the North-West (1187/97) [2000] ZANWHC 4 (16 February 2000)

The court held that Adv Jagga failed to meet the requirements for excision of judgment portions as set out in Voet 42.1.27. Jagga was not an uninformed third party; he was central to the proceedings, had full knowledge, and actively participated by deposing affidavits and responding to allegations. The authority cited by Jagga applies only to persons who were unaware of the proceedings and were not summoned, which was not his situation. Furthermore, Voet does not authorise the excision or dismemberment of judgment portions, but rather provides for a declaration that no prejudice is created for an uninformed third party. The court found no legal or factual basis for excising any portion of...

Citation
[2000] ZANWHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Hotel Slots (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: North West Agricultural Bank; Respondent: Premier of North West
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 February 2000
Case Number
1187/97
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Post Judgment Representations for Excision of Judgment Portion
Outcome
Jagga's request for excision of judgment portions is dismissed.
Judges
M.T.R. Mogoeng
Legal Topics
Third Party Prejudice, Judgment Excisions, Provincial Legislative Powers
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Third Party Prejudice Judgment Excisions Provincial Legislative Powers

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hotel Slots (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

North West Agricultural Bank

Applicant

Premier of North West

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Post Judgment Representations for Excision of Judgment Portion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a third party criticised in a judgment may seek excision of the relevant portion post-delivery.
  2. 2 Whether Voet 42.1.27 provides authority for excising prejudicial remarks from a judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant, Adv Jagga, meets the requirements for protection as a third party under Voet.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Adv Jagga failed to meet the requirements for excision of judgment portions as set out in Voet 42.1.27. Jagga was not an uninformed third party; he was central to the proceedings, had full knowledge, and actively participated by deposing affidavits and responding to allegations. The authority cited by Jagga applies only to persons who were unaware of the proceedings and were not summoned, which was not his situation. Furthermore, Voet does not authorise the excision or dismemberment of judgment portions, but rather provides for a declaration that no prejudice is created for an uninformed third party. The court found no legal or factual basis for excising any portion of...

Court Disposition

Jagga's request for excision of judgment portions is dismissed.

Orders

  • No portion of the judgment will be excised.
  • Jagga's representations are refused.