Ndaba v Mhlambi (AR 267/10) [2011] ZAKZPHC 17 (4 April 2011)
- Citation
- [2011] ZAKZPHC 17
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
- Panel
- K. Swain, J. Ploos van Amstel
- Case number
- AR 267/10
More details
- Court
- Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
- Panel
- K. Swain, J. Ploos van Amstel
- Case number
- AR 267/10
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the incorrect reflection of the respondent's name in the heading of the judgment and the attorneys of record in the record of appearances were patent clerical errors as envisaged by Rule 42(1)(b). The judgment heading and record of appearances were amended to correctly reflect Joseph Jamela Mhlambi as the respondent and Louis M. Podbielski as the attorneys of record.
Court disposition
Clerical errors in the judgment heading and record of appearances were corrected under Rule 42(1)(b).
Orders
- The heading to the judgment is amended to reflect Joseph Jamela Mhlambi as the respondent.
- The record of appearances is amended to reflect Louis M. Podbielski as the respondent's attorneys.
02
Material facts
Parties
Vincent Delani Ndaba
AppellantJoseph Jamela Mhlambi
Respondent Counsel: Louis M. Podbielski03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Addendum to Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent was incorrectly named in the heading of the judgment due to a clerical error.
- 02
Whether the record of appearances incorrectly reflected the respondent's attorneys.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The respondent's attorneys notified the court that the respondent was incorrectly named as Podbielski Mhlambi Incorporated in the judgment heading, instead of Joseph Jamela Mhlambi. They also pointed out that the attorneys of record were incorrectly reflected as Podbielski Mhlambi Incorporated, when they were in fact Louis M. Podbielski.
- Respondent
- The respondent sought correction of the clerical errors in the judgment heading and the record of appearances to accurately reflect the respondent's name and attorneys.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court
A court may correct patent clerical errors in its judgment under Rule 42(1)(b).
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the incorrect reflection of the respondent's name in the heading of the judgment and the attorneys of record in the record of appearances were patent clerical errors as envisaged by Rule 42(1)(b). The judgment heading and record of appearances were amended to correctly reflect Joseph Jamela Mhlambi as the respondent and Louis M. Podbielski as the attorneys of record.
Obiter and limits
- The error regarding the respondent's attorneys was of lesser importance but was nonetheless corrected.
Court disposition
Clerical errors in the judgment heading and record of appearances were corrected under Rule 42(1)(b).
- The heading to the judgment is amended to reflect Joseph Jamela Mhlambi as the respondent.
- The record of appearances is amended to reflect Louis M. Podbielski as the respondent's attorneys.
Source and reliance status
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Judgment
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
CASE NO. AR 267/10
In the matter between:
VINCENT DELANI NDABA …..................................................APPELLANT
and
JOSEPH JAMELA MHLAMBI …...........................................RESPONDENT
ADDENDUM TO JUDGMENT
SWAIN J
[1] It has been brought to our attention, by the respondent’s attorneys that the respondent is incorrectly reflected in the heading to the Judgment as Podbielski Mhlambi Incorporated, when the respondent is Joseph Jamela Mhlambi.
[2] It is quite clear that this was a patent clerical error as envisaged by Rule 42 (1) (b) and the heading to the Judgment has been amended accordingly.
[3] Of lesser importance is that the respondent’s attorneys of record were reflected in the record of appearances as Podbielski Mhlambi Incorporated, when the respondent’s attorneys were Louis M. Podbielski. This aspect has also been amended.
Dated at Pietermaritzburg this day of April 2011
____
K. SWAIN J
________
J. PLOOS VAN AMSTEL A J
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.