Mashilo v Lemmer and Others (Variation) (33669/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 330 (12 April 2024)
The court found that the judgment delivered on 17 November 2023 contained patent errors, specifically the incorrect reference to the first respondent as the third respondent in paragraphs 3 and 7, and the inclusion of an order dismissing the application when it was withdrawn. These errors did not reflect the court's intention and did not alter the substance of the judgment. In terms of Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, the court is empowered to correct such errors. The court accordingly varied its order by removing the first paragraph and correcting the references to the respondents, ensuring that the judgment and order accurately reflect the proceedings and the court's intention.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 330
- Parties
- Applicant: Fridah Mosima Mashilo; Respondent: Johann Richard Lemmer; Respondent: Anna Maria Elizabeth Lemmer; Respondent: Jan Hendrik Marx; Respondent: Stephan Fourie Attorneys; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, South; Respondent: Thornbrook Golf Estate Property; Respondent: The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2024
- Case Number
- 33669/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Variation Application / Variation of Judgment Under Rule 42(1)(b)
- Outcome
- Order varied to correct patent errors; operative order now stays the counter-application for eviction pending the outcome of the action in case number 87517-2023, with costs to be costs in the action.
- Judges
- WJ du Plessis
- Legal Topics
- Variation of Judgment, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42, Patent Error Correction
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Fridah Mosima Mashilo
Applicant
Johann Richard Lemmer
Respondent
Anna Maria Elizabeth Lemmer
Respondent
Jan Hendrik Marx
Respondent
Stephan Fourie Attorneys
Respondent
Registrar of Deeds, South
Respondent
Thornbrook Golf Estate Property
Respondent
The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Variation of Judgment Under Rule 42(1)(b)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgment delivered on 17 November 2023 contains patent errors or omissions requiring correction under Rule 42(1)(b).
- 2 Whether references to the first respondent as the third respondent in paragraphs 3 and 7 constitute errors affecting the judgment.
- 3 Whether the order should be varied to remove the paragraph dismissing the application, given that the application was withdrawn.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the judgment delivered on 17 November 2023 contained patent errors, specifically the incorrect reference to the first respondent as the third respondent in paragraphs 3 and 7, and the inclusion of an order dismissing the application when it was withdrawn. These errors did not reflect the court's intention and did not alter the substance of the judgment. In terms of Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, the court is empowered to correct such errors. The court accordingly varied its order by removing the first paragraph and correcting the references to the respondents, ensuring that the judgment and order accurately reflect the proceedings and the court's intention.
Court Disposition
Order varied to correct patent errors; operative order now stays the counter-application for eviction pending the outcome of the action in case number 87517-2023, with costs to be costs in the action.
Orders
- The counter-application for eviction is stayed, pending the outcome of the action in case number 87517-2023.
- Costs in this application are to be costs in the action mentioned in 1.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment