Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v Gcora (508/2018) [2018] ZAECPEHC 47 (21 August 2018)

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v Gcora (508/2018) [2018] ZAECPEHC 47 (21 August 2018)

The court found that the omission of reference to executive officials and employees in the original order was a patent error and did not reflect the true intention of the court. Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court empowers the court to correct such errors to ensure its order accurately reflects its intention. The variation application was unopposed and the court granted the order sought, varying the original order to include executive officials and employees among those protected from defamation by the respondent. The correction did not alter the substance of the order but merely clarified its scope in line with the applicant's notice of motion and the court's intention.

Citation
[2018] ZAECPEHC 47
Parties
Applicant: Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality; Respondent: Sipho Gcora
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 August 2018
Case Number
508/2018
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Application for Variation of Order Under Rule 42
Outcome
The variation application was granted. The original order was varied to include executive officials and employees among those protected from defamation.
Judges
S M Mbenenge, M Makaula, N L Ntsepe
Legal Topics
Variation of Court Order, Clerical Error, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Interdict, Defamation
Civil Procedure Variation of Court Order Clerical Error Rule 42 Uniform Rules Interdict Defamation

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

Applicant

Sipho Gcora

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Application for Variation of Order Under Rule 42

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original court order contained a clerical or patent error by omitting reference to executive officials and employees.
  2. 2 Whether the order should be varied under Rule 42(1)(b) to reflect the true intention of the court.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be interdicted from defaming the applicant's executive officials and employees in addition to the applicant and its legal representatives.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the omission of reference to executive officials and employees in the original order was a patent error and did not reflect the true intention of the court. Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court empowers the court to correct such errors to ensure its order accurately reflects its intention. The variation application was unopposed and the court granted the order sought, varying the original order to include executive officials and employees among those protected from defamation by the respondent. The correction did not alter the substance of the order but merely clarified its scope in line with the applicant's notice of motion and the court's intention.

Court Disposition

The variation application was granted. The original order was varied to include executive officials and employees among those protected from defamation.

Orders

  • The order of 10 July 2018 is varied to read: The respondent is restrained and interdicted from, in any manner whatsoever, defaming or making derogatory remarks of and concerning the applicant, its executive officials, employees and legal representatives.