Native Child Africa (Pty) Ltd v Akinwale and Another (125850/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 71 (30 January 2024)
The court found that the original judgment and order handed down on 25 January 2024 did not accurately reflect the ex tempore orders made on 19 December 2023 regarding the second respondent. Specifically, the application against the second respondent was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and the applicant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 71
- Parties
- Applicant: Native Child Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mary Oluwatobiloba Akinwale; Respondent: Lutendo Siphuma
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 125850/2023
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Variation of Judgment
- Outcome
- The judgment and order of 25 January 2024 are varied to accurately reflect the ex tempore orders made on 19 December 2023 regarding the second respondent.
- Judges
- K Strydom
- Legal Topics
- Variation of Judgment, Costs Order, Striking From Roll, Urgency
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Native Child Africa (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Mary Oluwatobiloba Akinwale
Respondent
Lutendo Siphuma
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Variation of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the original judgment and order correctly reflected the ex tempore orders made in respect of the second respondent.
- 2 Whether the costs order regarding the second respondent was accurately recorded.
- 3 Whether the details of counsel for the second respondent were properly included in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the original judgment and order handed down on 25 January 2024 did not accurately reflect the ex tempore orders made on 19 December 2023 regarding the second respondent. Specifically, the application against the second respondent was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and the applicant was ordered to pay the reasonable party and party costs of the second respondent, including the costs of one counsel. The judgment was accordingly varied to correct these errors and to ensure that the details of the second respondent's counsel were properly recorded. The variation was necessary to give effect to the true intention and pronouncement of the court as delivered in...
Court Disposition
The judgment and order of 25 January 2024 are varied to accurately reflect the ex tempore orders made on 19 December 2023 regarding the second respondent.
Orders
- The reference in [3] of the order delivered in terms of paragraph 109 of the judgment is amended to read 'first respondent'.
- Order [8] is amended to reserve the costs of the application as between the applicant and the first respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 125850/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
Date 30 January 2024
Signature
In the matter between:
NATIVE CHILD AFRICA (PTY) LTD
APPLICANT
and
MARY OLUWATOBILOBA AKINWALE
FIRST RESPONDENT
LUTENDO SIPHUMA
SECOND RESPONDENT
VARIATION OF JUDGMENT
K STRYDOM AJ
INTRODUCTION
1. Subsequent to the handing down of the judgment on the 25th of January 2024 in this matter, it was brough to my attention that the judgment and order do not correctly reflect the orders that were made, ex tempore, in Court, on the 19th of December 2023 in respect of the second respondent.
2. As indicated in the judgment, I had struck the application against the 2nd respondent from the role as being not urgent, however the judgment erroneously reflects that costs were reserved. On the 19th of December 2023 I had in fact ordered that the second respondent’s costs be paid by the applicant which costs would include the costs of one council. This order followed argument regarding whether costs of two council should be allowed.
3. The present judgment also does not reflect the details of the counsel for the 2nd respondent on the last page. I am indebted to Mr Ntjana for bringing these errors to my attention and will ensure that his details are now correctly reflected.
4. As a result, I hereby vary the judgment and order granted in this matter on the 25th of January 2024 as follows:
4.1. The reference, in [3] of the order delivered in terms of paragraph 109 of the judgment, is amended to “respondent” is amended to read “first respondent.”
4.2. The order per [8] of the order delivered in terms of paragraph 109 of the judgment, is amended in its entirety to read:
4.2.1. [8] ”The costs of the application as between the applicant and the first respondent are reserved.”
4.3. The following paragraphs are to be inserted immediately after [8], as amended supra, of the order under paragraph 109 of the judgment:
4.3.1. [9] The application against the second respondent is struck from the roll due to lack of urgency
4.3.2. [10] The applicant is ordered to pay the reasonable party and party costs of the second respondent, inclusive of the costs pursuant to the employment of one counsel.
4.4. The final page of the judgment is to include the details of the representatives of the second respondent, as reflected in the final page of this variation order.
K. STRYDOM
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Date of hearing: 20 December 2023
Date of judgment: 25 January 2024
Date of variation: 30 January 2024
APPEARANCES:
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT: D. MUTEMWA INSTRUCTED BY: THOBAKGALE ATTORNEYS INC. COUNSEL FOR 1ST RESPONDENTS: B. LUTHULI INS CCTED BY: COWAN-HARPER MADIKIZELA ATTORNEYS INC COUNSEL FOR 2ND RESPONDENTS: K. M. NTJANA INSTRUCTED BY: S. L. ATTORNEYS