Liberty Holdings v Maloka and Another (21/19942) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1229 (17 November 2024)
The court found that the original order failed to reflect its intention as expressed in the judgment, specifically the dismissal of the main application and the declaration of the respondent as a vexatious litigant. This omission constituted a patent error that could be corrected mero motu under Rule 42(1)(b), as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 1229
- Parties
- Applicant: Liberty Holdings; Applicant: Standard Bank of South Africa; Respondent: Rakokwane Maloka
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 21/19942
- Procedural Posture
- Variation Application / Variation of Final Order Under Rule 42(1)(b)
- Outcome
- Main application dismissed; respondent declared vexatious litigant; costs awarded against respondent.
- Judges
- WJ du Plessis
- Legal Topics
- Variation of Order, Vexatious Litigation, Rule 42, Costs Award
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Liberty Holdings
Applicant
Standard Bank of South Africa
Applicant
Rakokwane Maloka
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Variation of Final Order Under Rule 42(1)(b)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the original order omitted the court's intention as expressed in the judgment.
- 2 Whether the omission can be corrected under Rule 42(1)(b).
- 3 Whether the respondent should be declared a vexatious litigant under section 2(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the original order failed to reflect its intention as expressed in the judgment, specifically the dismissal of the main application and the declaration of the respondent as a vexatious litigant. This omission constituted a patent error that could be corrected mero motu under Rule 42(1)(b), as the correction did not alter the substance of the judgment. The court was satisfied that the requirements for declaring the respondent a vexatious litigant were met, given the respondent's conduct and the abuse of court process. The order was accordingly varied to dismiss the main application, declare the respondent a vexatious litigant, and prohibit the institution of further...
Court Disposition
Main application dismissed; respondent declared vexatious litigant; costs awarded against respondent.
Orders
- The main application is dismissed.
- The respondent, Rakokwane Maloka, is declared a vexatious litigant as contemplated in section 2(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case no 21/19942
(1) REPORTABLE: Yes☐/ No ☒
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Yes☐ / No ☒
(3) REVISED: Yes ☐ / No ☐
17 October 2024 WJ du Plessis
In the matter between:
LIBERTY HOLDINGS First Applicant and RAKOKWANE MALOKA First Respondent STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA Second Respondent And in the matter between: THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Applicant And RAKOKWANE MALOKA Respondent And in the matter of: LIBERTY HOLDINGS First applicant STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA Second applicant And RAKOKWANE MALOKA Respondent
Coram: Du Plessis AJ
Heard on: 16 August 2024
Decided on: 17 October 2024, variation 8 November 2024
This judgment has been delivered by uploading it to the CaseLines digital database of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, and by e-mail to the attorneys of record of the parties. The deemed date and time of the delivery is 10H00 on 17 October 2024.
JUDGMENT: VARIATION OF ORDER in terms of RULE 42(1)(b)
DU PLESSIS AJ
[1] This is a variation of the order this court granted on 17 October 2024 to correct a patent error or omission in the judgment handed down.
[2] In paragraph 32 of the judgment, I found:
Thus, I am satisfied that the applicants made out a case in terms of Rule 47(4), and I am satisfied that this is an instance where the main application should be dismissed.
[3] This was not reflected in the order. In other words, the order did not reflect the court’s intention as expressed in the judgment. The intention of the court is ascertainable from the sentence. Upon reading the judgment as a whole, together with the order, it is clear that there is an omission in the order itself that can be corrected mero motu. Such a variation to clarify the order[1] does not alter the substance of the judgment[2] and thus may be corrected in terms of Rule 42(1)(b).
Order
[4] The following order is made:
1. The main application is dismissed.
2. The respondent, Rakokwane Maloka, is declared a vexatious litigant as contemplated in section 2(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956.
3. The respondent shall not institute any legal proceedings against any person in any court without the leave of this Court or any judge of this Court. Such leave shall not be granted unless the Court or the Judge is satisfied that the proceedings the respondent wishes to institute are not an abuse of the process of the Court and that there is a prima facie ground for the intended proceedings.
4. The respondent is to pay the costs of the application on scale C.
WJ du Plessis
Acting Judge of the High Court
For the Applicants: R Itzkin and Z Manentsa instructed by SGV Inc and Jason Michael Smith Inc For the Respondents: Self-represented
[1] Thompson v South African Broadcasting Corporation [2000] ZASCA 76; 2001 (3) SA 746 (SCA) at 748 – 9.
[2] S v Wells 1990 (1) SA 816 (A) 820C-F , Seatle v Protea Assurance Co Ltd 1984 (2) SA 537 (C).