Joffe and Others v Farley NO and Others (Erratum) (083964/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1065 (23 October 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 1065
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Neukircher
- Case number
- 083964/2023
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Neukircher
- Case number
- 083964/2023
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.'
02
Material facts
Parties
Annamarie Joffe
ApplicantJacquline Barclay
ApplicantJason Michael Joffe
ApplicantRoberto Carolo Farley NO
RespondentTshenolo Farley NO
RespondentRoberto Carolo Farley
RespondentTshenolo Farley
RespondentAnoinette Frances Farley
RespondentJohannes Jacobus Rossouw NO
RespondentMaster of the North Gauteng High Court
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application / Erratum Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the original order incorrectly referred to the fourth respondent instead of the seventh respondent for cancellation and issuance of letters of authority.
- 02
Whether the order should be amended under Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants did not make submissions in this erratum; the correction is initiated by the court to rectify a patent error in the original order regarding the responsible party for cancelling and issuing letters of authority.
- Respondent
- The respondents did not make submissions in this erratum; the correction is procedural and based on the court's own motion to ensure the order reflects the correct responsible party.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court
A court may correct patent errors in its orders under Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court to ensure the order reflects the true intention and legal requirements.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- The correction does not affect the substantive rights of the parties but ensures procedural compliance with statutory requirements regarding trust administration.
- Patent errors in orders must be rectified promptly to avoid confusion and ensure proper execution of judicial decisions.
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).
- 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.'
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Case no: 083964/2023 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED: YES DATE: 23 October 2024 SIGNATURE: In the matter between:
ANNAMARIE
JOFFE First Applicant
JACQULINE
BARCLAY Second Applicant
JASON
MICHAEL JOFFE Third Applicant and
ROBERTO
CAROLO FARLEY NO First Respondent
TSHENOLO
FARLEY NO Second Respondent
ROBERTO CAROLO FARLEY Third Respondent
TSHENOLO FARLEY Fourth Respondent
ANOINETTE
FRANCES FARLEY Fifth Respondent
JOHANNES JACOBUS ROSSOUW NO Sixth Respondent
MASTER
OF THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH
COURT Seventh Respondent
ERRATUM JUDGMENT
NEUKIRCHER J: In the judgment and order handed down on 21 October 2024 paragraph 5 and 6 of the order states: 5. The first and second respondents are removed as trustees of the Trust and the fourth respondent is ordered to cancel the letters of authority dated 20 October 2014 authorising the first and second respondents to act.
6. The fourth 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. The reference to the fourth respondent is a patent error as it is only the Master of the High Court that can perform these functions. I hereby correct this in terms of the provisions of Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court. Order: Paragraph 5 and 6 of the order of the judgment handed down on 21 October 2024 is amended to read as follows: 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.
NEUKIRCHER J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case no: 083964/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED:
YES
DATE: 23 October 2024
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
ANNAMARIE
JOFFE First Applicant
JACQULINE
BARCLAY Second Applicant
JASON
MICHAEL JOFFE Third Applicant
and
ROBERTO
CAROLO FARLEY NO First Respondent
TSHENOLO
FARLEY NO Second Respondent
ROBERTO CAROLO FARLEY Third Respondent
TSHENOLO FARLEY Fourth Respondent
ANOINETTE
FRANCES FARLEY Fifth Respondent
JOHANNES JACOBUS ROSSOUW NO Sixth Respondent
MASTER
OF THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH
COURT Seventh Respondent
ERRATUM JUDGMENT
NEUKIRCHER J:
In the judgment and order handed down on 21 October 2024 paragraph 5 and 6 of the order states:
5. The first and second respondents are removed as trustees of the Trust and the fourth respondent is ordered to cancel the letters of authority dated 20 October 2014 authorising the first and second respondents to act.
6. The fourth 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.
The reference to the fourth respondent is a patent error as it is only the Master of the High Court that can perform these functions.
I hereby correct this in terms of the provisions of Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
Order:
Paragraph 5 and 6 of the order of the judgment handed down on 21 October 2024 is amended to read as follows:
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.
NEUKIRCHER J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.