Joffe and Others v Farley NO and Others (Erratum) (083964/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1065 (23 October 2024)

Joffe and Others v Farley NO and Others (Erratum) (083964/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1065 (23 October 2024)

The court identified a patent error in the original order, which incorrectly assigned the responsibility for cancelling and issuing letters of authority to the fourth respondent. The correct party empowered to perform these functions is the Master of the High Court, cited as the seventh respondent. In terms of Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court, the court is empowered to correct such errors to ensure the order is legally accurate and enforceable. The order is accordingly amended to direct the seventh respondent to cancel the letters of authority dated 20 October 2014 and to issue new letters of authority to the applicants and the proposed independent trustee.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1065
Parties
Applicant: Annamarie Joffe; Applicant: Jacquline Barclay; Applicant: Jason Michael Joffe; Respondent: Roberto Carolo Farley NO; Respondent: Tshenolo Farley NO; Respondent: Roberto Carolo Farley; Respondent: Tshenolo Farley; Respondent: Anoinette Frances Farley; Respondent: Johannes Jacobus Rossouw NO; Respondent: Master of the North Gauteng High Court
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 October 2024
Case Number
083964/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Erratum Order
Outcome
Order amended to correct the responsible party for cancellation and issuance of letters of authority from the fourth respondent to the seventh respondent (Master of the High Court).
Judges
Neukircher
Legal Topics
Trustees Removal, Rectification of Order, Letters of Authority
Civil Procedure Land and Property Trustees Removal Rectification of Order Letters of Authority

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annamarie Joffe

Applicant

Jacquline Barclay

Applicant

Jason Michael Joffe

Applicant

Roberto Carolo Farley NO

Respondent

Tshenolo Farley NO

Respondent

Roberto Carolo Farley

Respondent

Tshenolo Farley

Respondent

Anoinette Frances Farley

Respondent

Johannes Jacobus Rossouw NO

Respondent

Master of the North Gauteng High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Erratum Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original order incorrectly referred to the fourth respondent instead of the seventh respondent for cancellation and issuance of letters of authority.
  2. 2 Whether the order should be amended under Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court identified a patent error in the original order, which incorrectly assigned the responsibility for cancelling and issuing letters of authority to the fourth respondent. The correct party empowered to perform these functions is the Master of the High Court, cited as the seventh respondent. In terms of Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court, the court is empowered to correct such errors to ensure the order is legally accurate and enforceable. The order is accordingly amended to direct the seventh respondent to cancel the letters of authority dated 20 October 2014 and to issue new letters of authority to the applicants and the proposed independent trustee.

Court Disposition

Order amended to correct the responsible party for cancellation and issuance of letters of authority from the fourth respondent to the seventh respondent (Master of the High Court).

Orders

  • Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order handed down on 21 October 2024 are amended to read: '5. The first and second respondents are removed as trustees of the Trust and the seventh respondent is ordered to cancel the letters of authority dated 20 October 2014 authorising the first and second respondents to act.'
  • '6. The seventh respondent is directed to provide the applicants and the proposed independent trustee with letters of authority authorising them to act as trustees of the Trust.'