Quill Associates (Pty) Ltd v Randfontein Local Municipality and Another (36264/2013; 36265/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 639 (15 September 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPPHC 639
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- S. Potterill
- Case number
- 36264/2013; 36265/2013
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- S. Potterill
- Case number
- 36264/2013; 36265/2013
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the original judgment was ambiguous regarding whether the awarded amounts covered both the period before and after summons. It was the court's intention that the amount of R750 000 per respondent should apply to both periods. Accordingly, the judgment was clarified and paragraphs 52.5 and 52.6 were amended to specify that the royalty and monthly licence fee awards relate to the period prior to summons as well as the period after summons. No order as to costs was made.
Court disposition
Application for clarification granted. Judgment amended to clarify that the awarded amounts relate to both the period prior to and after summons.
Orders
- Paragraphs 52.5 and 52.6 of the judgment are amended to specify that the royalty and monthly licence fee awards relate to both the period prior to summons and the period after summons.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Quill Associates (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: S.D. Wagener SCRandfontein Local Municipality
Respondent Counsel: C. GeorgiadesWestonaria Local Municipality
Respondent Counsel: C. GeorgiadesAmounts and remedies
- Royalty and Licence Fee Awarded to Plaintiff From First Respondent: ZAR 4,750,000
- Royalty and Licence Fee Awarded to Plaintiff From Second Respondent: ZAR 4,750,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Application for Clarification / Application in Terms of Rule 6(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the awarded amount of R750 000 per respondent relates only to the period before summons or also to the period after summons.
- 02
Whether the judgment requires clarification regarding the periods covered by the royalty and licence fee awards.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the judgment or order was unclear as to whether the awarded amounts as a reasonable rate (R750 000 per respondent) pertained solely to the period before summons or also included the period after summons. The applicant sought clarification to ensure that the amounts covered both periods, as the claim was for infringement before and after summons.
- Respondent
- The application was unopposed. No arguments were advanced by the respondents.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 6(11)
A court may clarify or amend its judgment or order to reflect its true intention where ambiguity exists.
- 02
Copyright Act 98 of 1978
Damages or royalties for copyright infringement may be awarded for both pre-summons and post-summons periods if the infringement continued.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the original judgment was ambiguous regarding whether the awarded amounts covered both the period before and after summons. It was the court's intention that the amount of R750 000 per respondent should apply to both periods. Accordingly, the judgment was clarified and paragraphs 52.5 and 52.6 were amended to specify that the royalty and monthly licence fee awards relate to the period prior to summons as well as the period after summons. No order as to costs was made.
Obiter and limits
- The application for clarification was unopposed, which expedited the resolution of the ambiguity.
- It is regrettable that the original judgment was not sufficiently clear, necessitating this application.
Court disposition
Application for clarification granted. Judgment amended to clarify that the awarded amounts relate to both the period prior to and after summons.
- Paragraphs 52.5 and 52.6 of the judgment are amended to specify that the royalty and monthly licence fee awards relate to both the period prior to summons and the period after summons.
- No order as to costs.
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)
Case Number: 36264/2013 and 36265/2013
DATE: 15/9/2015
In the matter between:
QUILL ASSOCIATES (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
RANDFONTEIN
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
First Respondent
WESTONARIA
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6(11)
POTTERILL J
[1] The applicant brought an application on notice in terms of Rule 6(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
[2] This application is unopposed.
[3] The applicant is applying that the judgment or order of the court be clarified as to whether the amounts awarded as a reasonable rate (being a global amount R750 000 per respondent) relates only to the period before summons or also relates to the period after summons.
[4] The plaintiff claimed for the period before summons (February 2013 - June 2013) as well as the period from June 2013 until the date that each of the respondents actually ceased to infringe on the plaintiff’s copyright i.e. the period after summons.
[5] The judgment as it stands is regrettably not suitably clarified, but was the intention to convey that the amount of R750 000 relates to the period before summons, as well as the period after summons.
[6] I accordingly make the following order:
6.1 Paragraphs 52.5 and 52.6 are amended or varied to read as follows:
“52.5 That the first defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amount of R4 750 000.00 as royalty as well as a monthly licence fee for the period prior to summons and the period after summons.
52.6 That the second defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of R4 750 000.00 as royalty as well as a monthly licence fee for the period prior to summons and the period after summons.”
6.2 No order as to costs.
______
S.
POTTERILL
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
CASE NO: 36264/2013 and 36265/2013
HEARD ON: 11 September 2015
FOR THE APPLICANT: ADV. S.D. WAGENER SC
INSTRUCTED BY: A.L. Maree Incorporated
FOR THE 1st and 2nd RESPONDENTS: ADV. C.
GEORGIADES
INSTRUCTED BY: Matseke Attorneys
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15 September 2015
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.