Steyn v Ngququ N.O and Others - Amendment Order (4133/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 224 (9 June 2023)

Steyn v Ngququ N.O and Others - Amendment Order (4133/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 224 (9 June 2023)

The court found that the original order omitted to specify that the first respondent, in his personal capacity, should pay the applicant's costs on an attorney and client scale, as was justified by his unprofessional conduct. The omission was a patent error that could be corrected under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The varied order clarifies the punitive costs award and ensures the judgment reflects the court's intention as expressed in its reasoning.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 224
Parties
Applicant: Danẽ Steyn; Respondent: Zwelibanzi William Ngququ N.O.; Respondent: Master of the High Court Bloemfontein; Respondent: Registrar of Deed Bloemfontein; Respondent: Waterlaagte Voerkraal (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Marieta Steyn
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 June 2023
Case Number
4133/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Amendment Order
Outcome
Order varied to specify that the first respondent, in his personal capacity, is to pay the applicant's costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Variation of Order, Punitive Costs, Rule 42 Uniform Rules
Civil Procedure Variation of Order Punitive Costs 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danẽ Steyn

Applicant

Zwelibanzi William Ngququ N.O.

Respondent

Master of the High Court Bloemfontein

Respondent

Registrar of Deed Bloemfontein

Respondent

Waterlaagte Voerkraal (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Marieta Steyn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Amendment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original costs order should be varied to specify that the first respondent pays costs in his personal capacity.
  2. 2 Whether Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court permits such a variation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the original order omitted to specify that the first respondent, in his personal capacity, should pay the applicant's costs on an attorney and client scale, as was justified by his unprofessional conduct. The omission was a patent error that could be corrected under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The varied order clarifies the punitive costs award and ensures the judgment reflects the court's intention as expressed in its reasoning.

Court Disposition

Order varied to specify that the first respondent, in his personal capacity, is to pay the applicant's costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The first respondent, in his personal capacity, is to pay the applicant’s costs on an attorney and client scale.