Praescripto (Pty) Ltd v Van der Merwe Du Toit Inc and Others (66839/12) [2017] ZAGPPHC 400 (21 June 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 400
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- J Strydom
- Case number
- 66839/12
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- J Strydom
- Case number
- 66839/12
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the original judgment delivered on 7 October 2015 contained a typographical error in the citation of parties, listing three individuals who were not involved in the litigation. The error was purely clerical and did not affect the substance of the judgment or the orders granted. The court exercised its discretion to correct the citation, removing the incorrect names and confirming that the remainder of the judgment and the order remain unchanged. The correction ensures the record accurately reflects the parties to the proceedings without altering the legal effect of the judgment.
Court disposition
The judgment is corrected to remove the names of lmatu, Suzanne Terry, and Elizna Rochelle von Mollendorf from the citation; the remainder of the judgment and the order remain unchanged.
Orders
- The names of lmatu, Suzanne Terry, and Elizna Rochelle von Mollendorf are removed from the judgment.
- The remainder of the judgment and the order delivered on 7 October 2015 remain unchanged.
02
Material facts
Parties
Praescripto (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: JA VenterVan der Merwe Du Toit Inc
Respondent Counsel: AM HeystekJan Lodewikus Pretorius N.O.
RespondentElizabeth Wilanda Prinsloo N.O.
RespondentThe Master of the North Gauteng High Court
RespondentThe South African Revenue Services
RespondentThe Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Corrigendum on Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the judgment delivered on 7 October 2015 contained a citation error regarding the parties.
- 02
Whether the correction of the party names affects the substance or order of the judgment.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant did not raise any objection to the correction of the party citation error and accepted the judgment as delivered, provided the correct parties are reflected.
- Respondent
- The first respondent's attorneys notified the court of a typing error in the citation, specifically the inclusion of three individuals who were not parties to the litigation, and requested correction to accurately reflect the parties.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 42
A court may correct clerical or typographical errors in its judgment to ensure the record accurately reflects the parties and proceedings, provided such correction does not alter the substance or operative order.
- 02
S v Wells 1990 (1) SA 816 (A)
Corrections to party citations do not affect the validity of the judgment or the orders made if the substance remains unchanged.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the original judgment delivered on 7 October 2015 contained a typographical error in the citation of parties, listing three individuals who were not involved in the litigation. The error was purely clerical and did not affect the substance of the judgment or the orders granted. The court exercised its discretion to correct the citation, removing the incorrect names and confirming that the remainder of the judgment and the order remain unchanged. The correction ensures the record accurately reflects the parties to the proceedings without altering the legal effect of the judgment.
Obiter and limits
- The correction of clerical errors in judgments is a routine judicial function and does not require a rehearing of the matter.
- Accurate citation of parties is essential for the integrity of court records and the administration of justice.
Court disposition
The judgment is corrected to remove the names of lmatu, Suzanne Terry, and Elizna Rochelle von Mollendorf from the citation; the remainder of the judgment and the order remain unchanged.
- The names of lmatu, Suzanne Terry, and Elizna Rochelle von Mollendorf are removed from the judgment.
- The remainder of the judgment and the order delivered on 7 October 2015 remain unchanged.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
21/6/2017
Not reportable
Not of interest to other judges
Revised.
CASE NUMBER: 66839/12
PRAESCRIPTO (PTY)
LTD APPLICANT
and
VAN
DER MERWE DU TOIT
INC FIRST
RESPONDENT
JAN
LODEWIKUS PRETORIUS N.O. SECOND
RESPONDENT
ELIZABETH WILANDA PRINSLOO N.O. THIRD
RESPONDENT
THE
MASTER OF THE
NORTH
GAUTENG HIGH
COURT FOURTH
RESPONDENT
THE
SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES FIFTH
RESPONDENT
THE
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
COMMISSION SIXTH
RESPONDENT
CORRIGENDUM
ON JUDGMENT
(APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
STRYDOM AJ:
1. On 7 October 2015 I delivered a judgment in the above matter. The content of the judgment and the order granted therein is correct.
2. The attorneys of the First Respondent brought it to my attention that a typing error was made in respect of the citation of the matter therein that page one of the judgement incorrectly includes three parties, which were not at all a party to the litigation; being: lmatu, Suzanne Terry and Elizna Rochelle von Mollendorf, cited respectively as the First, Second and Third Respondents.
3. The typing error is hereby corrected and the names of the aforesaid persons are removed from the judgment, the correct parties being reflected in the heading hereof.
4. The remainder of the judgment which I delivered and the order which I made remains unchanged.
______
J. S. STRYDOM
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
Counsel for the Applicant: Adv. JA Venter
Instructed by: EW Serfontein & Associates Inc
Counsel for the respondents: Adv. AM Heystek
Instructed by: Van der Merwe du Toit Inc
Date Heard: 15 September 2015
Date of Judgement in respect of Leave to Appeal: 7 October 2015
Date of Judgment: 30 November 2016
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.