Mncora v Butters; Butters v Mncora (881/2008, 3055/2010) [2013] ZAECPEHC 22; [2013] 3 All SA 330 (ECP) (23 April 2013)

Mncora v Butters; Butters v Mncora (881/2008, 3055/2010) [2013] ZAECPEHC 22; [2013] 3 All SA 330 (ECP) (23 April 2013)

The court found that the reference to '1998' in the original order was a patent typographical error, as all pleadings, trial particulars, and evidence indicated that the universal partnership commenced in 1988 and endured for approximately nineteen to twenty years. The correction of the year date does not alter the substance or sense of the judgment, but merely gives effect to the court's true intention. The court applied Rule 42(1)(b) and relevant case law, confirming its authority to correct such errors. The defendant's argument that the error was unilateral was rejected, as the trial particulars and evidence made the duration of the partnership clear to all parties. The order was...

Citation
[2013] ZAECPEHC 22
Parties
Applicant: Nomsa Virginia Mncora; Respondent: Andrew Kinloch Butters
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 April 2013
Case Number
881/2008, 3055/2010
Procedural Posture
Correction Application / Application for Amendment of Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The order is amended to substitute '1988' for '1998'. Costs awarded against the defendant.
Judges
Chetty
Legal Topics
Universal Partnership, Variation of Judgment, Patent Error, Rule 42, Partnership Duration
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Universal Partnership Variation of Judgment Patent Error Rule 42 Partnership Duration

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomsa Virginia Mncora

Applicant

Andrew Kinloch Butters

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Correction Application / Application for Amendment of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the year date '1998' in the original order was a patent typographical error and should be corrected to '1988'.
  2. 2 Whether the amendment alters the substance or sense of the original judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the universal partnership between the parties commenced in 1988 or 1998.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the reference to '1998' in the original order was a patent typographical error, as all pleadings, trial particulars, and evidence indicated that the universal partnership commenced in 1988 and endured for approximately nineteen to twenty years. The correction of the year date does not alter the substance or sense of the judgment, but merely gives effect to the court's true intention. The court applied Rule 42(1)(b) and relevant case law, confirming its authority to correct such errors. The defendant's argument that the error was unilateral was rejected, as the trial particulars and evidence made the duration of the partnership clear to all parties. The order was...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The order is amended to substitute '1988' for '1998'. Costs awarded against the defendant.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the order is amended by the deletion of the year date 1998 and its substitution by the year date 1988.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of this application.