South African Securitization Programme (RF) Limited and Others v Specialised Auto Center (Pty) Ltd and Others (16971/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 57 (26 January 2021)

South African Securitization Programme (RF) Limited and Others v Specialised Auto Center (Pty) Ltd and Others (16971/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 57 (26 January 2021)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any patent error, omission or ambiguity in the order granted by Molopa-Sethosa J. The transcript and the order were clear in their intention, and the applicants’ reliance on the Nedbank v Thobejane decision did not establish grounds for variation under Rule 42(1)(b). The applicants, having chosen the incorrect forum, could not seek to amend the order to 'transferred' when the order correctly reflected the court’s intention. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 57
Parties
Applicant: South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Limited; Applicant: Sasfin Bank Limited; Applicant: Sunlyn (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Specialised Auto Centre (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Albert Agema; Respondent: Beukes, Jacobus Johannes; Respondent: Beukes, Eugene Tertius; Respondent: The Clerk of the Magistrates’ Court, Pretoria Central
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2021
Case Number
16971/18
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Application for Variation of Court Order Under Rule 42(1)(b)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
M A Lukhaimane
Legal Topics
Rule 42 Variation, Transfer of Matters, Costs Orders, Jurisdiction of Magistrates Court
Civil Procedure Rule 42 Variation Transfer of Matters Costs Orders Jurisdiction of Magistrates Court

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Limited

Applicant

Sasfin Bank Limited

Applicant

Sunlyn (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Specialised Auto Centre (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Albert Agema

Respondent

Beukes, Jacobus Johannes

Respondent

Beukes, Eugene Tertius

Respondent

The Clerk of the Magistrates’ Court, Pretoria Central

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Application for Variation of Court Order Under Rule 42(1)(b)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court order granted by Molopa-Sethosa J contained a patent error, omission or ambiguity justifying variation under Rule 42(1)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the word 'issued' in the order should be amended to 'transferred'.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants made out a case for the relief sought under Rule 42(1)(b).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any patent error, omission or ambiguity in the order granted by Molopa-Sethosa J. The transcript and the order were clear in their intention, and the applicants’ reliance on the Nedbank v Thobejane decision did not establish grounds for variation under Rule 42(1)(b). The applicants, having chosen the incorrect forum, could not seek to amend the order to 'transferred' when the order correctly reflected the court’s intention. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for variation of the court order is dismissed with costs.