Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited and Another v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (7883/2007) [2017] ZAGPPHC 218 (30 May 2017)

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited and Another v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (7883/2007) [2017] ZAGPPHC 218 (30 May 2017)

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.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 218
Parties
Applicant: Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited; Applicant: ARM Mining Consortium Limited; Respondent: Minister of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Director-General, Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Deputy Director-General: Mineral Regulation, Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Regional Manager, Limpopo Region, Department of Mineral Resources; Respondent: Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Nkwe Platinum (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: International Goldfields Ltd; Respondent: Moruthane Ben Sekhukhune N.O.; Respondent: Bauba A Hlabirwa Mining Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Myeleti Mining (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Traditional Council of the Bengwenyama-Ya Maswati Community; Respondent: Roka Phasa Phokwane Traditional Council; Respondent: Miracle Upon Miracle Investments (PTYD) Ltd; Respondent: Nkwe Platinum Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2017
Case Number
7883/2007
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Order Varying Previous Judgment
Outcome
Order varied to correct patent errors and omissions in the costs order.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Variation of Order, Typographical Error, Costs Award, Rule 42 Uniform Rules
Civil Procedure Variation of Order Typographical Error Costs Award Rule 42 Uniform Rules

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited

Applicant

ARM Mining Consortium Limited

Applicant

Minister of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Director-General, Department of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Deputy Director-General: Mineral Regulation, Department of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Regional Manager, Limpopo Region, Department of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Nkwe Platinum (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

International Goldfields Ltd

Respondent

Moruthane Ben Sekhukhune N.O.

Respondent

Bauba A Hlabirwa Mining Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Myeleti Mining (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Traditional Council of the Bengwenyama-Ya Maswati Community

Respondent

Roka Phasa Phokwane Traditional Council

Respondent

Miracle Upon Miracle Investments (PTYD) Ltd

Respondent

Nkwe Platinum Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Order Varying Previous Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the omission of the 9th respondent from the costs order was a patent error or omission.
  2. 2 Whether the costs order should expressly include the costs of two counsel for the relevant respondents.

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.

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.