Meiring and Another v Jones (2985-2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 188 (26 February 2024)

Meiring and Another v Jones (2985-2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 188 (26 February 2024)

The court found that the reference to the incorrect policy number in the original order was a patent clerical error, as all parties understood the proceedings related to the policy of which the deceased was the beneficiary. The error did not affect the substance or intention of the judgment, which was to order the respondent to pay the proceeds of the correct policy to the estate. The delay in bringing the variation application was explained and condonation was granted, as the interests of justice required the error to be rectified. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 42(1)(b) to vary the order, ensuring the true intention of the original judgment was effected.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 188
Parties
Applicant: Carike Meiring N.O.; Applicant: Nishan Maibchund N.O.; Respondent: Carla Maria Jones (formerly Janmaat)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2024
Case Number
2985/2019
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Opposed Application for Variation of Prior Court Order
Outcome
Application for variation of the court order granted; condonation for delay granted; costs awarded against the respondent.
Judges
D T v R Du Plessis
Legal Topics
Variation of Court Order, Clerical Error, Buy and Sell Agreement, Condonation, Shareholder Dispute
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Variation of Court Order Clerical Error Buy and Sell Agreement Condonation Shareholder Dispute

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carike Meiring N.O.

Applicant

Nishan Maibchund N.O.

Applicant

Carla Maria Jones (formerly Janmaat)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Opposed Application for Variation of Prior Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the incorrect policy number in the original court order constitutes a patent error justifying variation under Rule 42(1)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the application for variation was brought within a reasonable time and whether condonation should be granted for any delay.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is obliged to pay the proceeds of the correct policy to the estate of the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the reference to the incorrect policy number in the original order was a patent clerical error, as all parties understood the proceedings related to the policy of which the deceased was the beneficiary. The error did not affect the substance or intention of the judgment, which was to order the respondent to pay the proceeds of the correct policy to the estate. The delay in bringing the variation application was explained and condonation was granted, as the interests of justice required the error to be rectified. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 42(1)(b) to vary the order, ensuring the true intention of the original judgment was effected.

Court Disposition

Application for variation of the court order granted; condonation for delay granted; costs awarded against the respondent.

Orders

  • The incorrect policy number in paragraph 1 of the Court Order handed down on 12 September 2019 under case number 2985/2019 is varied to reflect the correct policy number, being 700152986.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.