Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited and Another v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (7883/2007) [2017] ZAGPPHC 218 (30 May 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 218
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- AC Basson
- Case number
- 7883/2007
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- AC Basson
- Case number
- 7883/2007
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the omission of the 9th respondent from the costs order and the failure to expressly include the costs of two counsel were patent errors or omissions of a typographical nature. These errors are correctable under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The record showed that the 8th and 9th respondents were represented by the same legal team and referred to as the 'Bauba respondents', and that the costs of two counsel should have been included. The order was accordingly varied to correct these errors.
Court disposition
Order varied to correct patent errors and omissions in the costs order.
Orders
- The applicants, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the costs of the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 14th respondents, including the costs of two counsel.
02
Material facts
Parties
Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited
ApplicantARM Mining Consortium Limited
ApplicantMinister of Mineral Resources
RespondentDirector-General, Department of Mineral Resources
RespondentDeputy Director-General: Mineral Regulation, Department of Mineral Resources
RespondentRegional Manager, Limpopo Region, Department of Mineral Resources
RespondentGenorah Resources (Pty) Ltd
RespondentNkwe Platinum (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd
RespondentInternational Goldfields Ltd
RespondentMoruthane Ben Sekhukhune N.O.
RespondentBauba A Hlabirwa Mining Investments (Pty) Ltd
RespondentMyeleti Mining (Pty) Ltd
RespondentThe Traditional Council of the Bengwenyama-Ya Maswati Community
RespondentRoka Phasa Phokwane Traditional Council
RespondentMiracle Upon Miracle Investments (PTYD) Ltd
RespondentNkwe Platinum Ltd
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Variation Application / Order Varying Previous Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the omission of the 9th respondent from the costs order was a patent error or omission.
- 02
Whether the costs order should expressly include the costs of two counsel for the relevant respondents.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants did not oppose the variation application, as the omission of the 9th respondent and the reference to costs of two counsel were patent errors in the original order.
- Respondent
- The affected respondents submitted that the original order omitted the 9th respondent and failed to include the costs of two counsel, both of which were patent errors that should be corrected under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 42(1)(b) Uniform Rules of Court
A court may, under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, vary an order or judgment to correct patent errors or omissions of a typographical nature.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the omission of the 9th respondent from the costs order and the failure to expressly include the costs of two counsel were patent errors or omissions of a typographical nature. These errors are correctable under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The record showed that the 8th and 9th respondents were represented by the same legal team and referred to as the 'Bauba respondents', and that the costs of two counsel should have been included. The order was accordingly varied to correct these errors.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the correction of patent errors in orders is essential to ensure clarity and fairness in the administration of justice.
- It is important that orders accurately reflect the intention and findings of the court as set out in the judgment.
Court disposition
Order varied to correct patent errors and omissions in the costs order.
- The applicants, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the costs of the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 14th respondents, including the costs of two counsel.
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
Order
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 7883/2007
Reportable: No
Of interest to other judges: No
Revised.
30/5/2017
In the matter between:
RUSTENBURG
PLATINUM MINES LIMITED 1st Applicant
ARM
MINING CONSORTIUM LIMITED 2nd Applicant
and
MINISTER
OF MINERAL RESOURCES 1st Respondent
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF 2nd Respondent
MINERAL
RESOURCES
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL : MINERAL REGULATION, 3rd Respondent
DEPARTMENT
OF MINERAL RESOURCES
REGIONAL MANAGER, LIMPOPO REGION, DEPARTMENT 4th Respondent
OF
MINERAL RESOURCES
GENORAH RESOURCES (PTY) LTD 5th Respondent
NKWE PLATINUM (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD 6th Respondent
INTERNATIONAL
GOLDFIELDS LTD 7th Respondent
MORUTHANE
BEN SEKHUKHUNE N.O. 8th Respondent
BAUBA A HLABIRWA MINING INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD 9th Respondent
MYELETI MINING (PTY) LTD 10th Respondent
THE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL OF THE BENGWENYAMA-YA 11th Respondent
MASWATI
COMMUNITY
ROKA PHASA PHOKWANE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL 12th Respondent
MIRACLE UPON MIRACLE INVESTMENTS (PTYD) LTD 13th Respondent
NKWE
PLATINUM LTD 14th Respondent
JUDGMENT:
VARIATION
AC BASSON, J
[1] On 1 February 2017 this court handed down a judgment with the following order made in paragraph [13] of the order (consisting of 13 paragraphs):
"Order
[106] In the event the following order is made:
"13. The applicants jointly and severally are ordered to pay the costs of the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14th respondents."
[2] This order as it appears in the typed judgment omitted to refer to the gth respondent (Bauba A Hlabirwa Mining Investments (Pty) Ltd). I have since perused the records and I am in agreement with the submission that this omission is a patent error or omission of a typographical nature as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court and one which this court may vary upon the application of any party affected thereby. I may also briefly point out that it is clear from a reading of the judgment that the 8th and 9th respondents were at all material times represented by the same legal team and that they are referred to in the judgment as the "Bauba respondents".
[3] The same order in paragraph [13] unfortunately also contains a further patent error or omission in that the order does not expressly
refer to the costs of two counsel where it is clear from the record that such order ought to have been included.
[4] In the event the following varied order is made:
"13. The applicants , jointly and severally , are ordered to pay the costs of the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 14th respondents , including the costs of two counsel."
_______
AC
BASSON
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
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.