Mahlalela v Office of the Pension Fund Adjudicator (J283/2011) [2011] ZALCJHB 43 (14 June 2011)
The court identified an obvious typographical error in paragraph [10] of the original judgment, which rendered the sentence nonsensical. The error was not detected during final editing. The court exercised its inherent power to correct the judgment so that it accurately reflects the intended meaning. The corrected...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] ZALCJHB 43
- Parties
- Applicant: Blessing Mahlalela; Respondent: Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J283/2011
- Procedural Posture
- Variation Application / Variation of Judgment
- Outcome
- Paragraph [10] of the judgment is amended to correct the typographical error.
- Judges
- Lagrange
- Legal Topics
- Variation of Judgment, Typographical Error, Disciplinary Enquiry
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Blessing Mahlalela
Applicant
Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Variation of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether paragraph [10] of the original judgment contains an obvious typographical error requiring correction.
- 2 What is the correct wording for the sentence in paragraph [10] regarding the applicant's challenge to the disciplinary enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi
The court identified an obvious typographical error in paragraph [10] of the original judgment, which rendered the sentence nonsensical. The error was not detected during final editing. The court exercised its inherent power to correct the judgment so that it accurately reflects the intended meaning. The corrected sentence clarifies that the applicant challenged the impending disciplinary enquiry for which he had received notice on 10 February 2011.
Court Disposition
Paragraph [10] of the judgment is amended to correct the typographical error.
Orders
- Paragraph [10] of the judgment is amended by substituting the original sentence with: 'When this application was finally brought, the applicant challenged the impending disciplinary enquiry itself which he had received notice of on 10 February 2011.'
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO J283/2011 BLESSING MAHLALELA Applicant and OFFICE OF THE PENSION FUNDS ADJUDICATOR Respondent __________________________________________________________________________ VARIATION OF JUDGMENT __________________________________________________________________________
LAGRANGE, J
Introduction
It has been brought to my attention that there is an obvious error in paragraph [10] of the judgment in this matter which was handed down on 23 February 2011. The following sentence appears in paragraph [10] of the judgment:
“When this application was finally brought, the applicant challenged the impending disciplinary enquiry itself which he had any length of on 10 February 2011.”
(emphasis added)
The underlined portion is clearly nonsensical and an obvious typographical error, not picked up in final editing.
Accordingly, paragraph [10] of the judgment is amended by the substitution of the sentence above with the following:
“When this application was finally brought, the applicant challenged the impending disciplinary enquiry itself which he had received notice of on 10 February 2011.”
ROBERT LAGRANGE
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT
Date of variation of order: 14 June 2011