Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality v Kill Crime Security Service (Pty) Ltd and Others (Amended Order) (2237/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 27 (6 February 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAFSHC 27
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Mhlambi
- Case number
- 2237/2023
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Mhlambi
- Case number
- 2237/2023
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the amount stated in the original order was a typographical error and that the correct amount was R27 000 000.00. The court exercised its power under Rule 42(1)(b) to vary the order accordingly. Furthermore, the service level agreements and acknowledgment of debt between the applicant and first respondent were declared constitutionally invalid, as they did not comply with constitutional requirements. The applicant was granted leave to oppose the relief sought by the first respondent within five days. The first respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of employing senior counsel, on the scale as between party and party (Scale C).
Court disposition
Order amended to correct the judgment amount; service level agreements and acknowledgment of debt declared constitutionally invalid; leave granted to applicant to oppose; costs awarded against first respondent.
Orders
- The default judgment granted by the Registrar of this Court on 15 March 2024 in the amount of R27 000 000.00 is rescinded.
- The service level agreements entered into between the applicant and first respondent on 11 August 2020 and 8 December 2022, and the acknowledgment of debt entered into on 20 February 2023, are declared constitutionally invalid.
- Leave is granted to the applicant to file and deliver its notice of intention to oppose the relief applied for by the first respondent in case no. 2237/2023 within five days.
- The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application (Part A and Part B) on the scale as between party and party (Scale C), including the costs of employing senior counsel.
02
Material facts
Parties
Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality
Applicant Counsel: Adv. FW Botes SCKill Crime Security Service (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Adv. LR BomelaFirst National Bank of South Africa Ltd
RespondentSheriff of Phuthaditjhaba High Court
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Default Judgment Amount: ZAR 27,000,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application / Amended Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the default judgment amount was incorrectly recorded and requires correction.
- 02
Whether the service level agreements and acknowledgment of debt between the applicant and first respondent are constitutionally valid.
- 03
Whether the applicant should be granted leave to oppose the relief sought by the first respondent.
- 04
Who should bear the costs of the application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the default judgment amount was incorrectly recorded due to a typographical error and should reflect R27 000 000.00 instead of R27 000.00. The applicant further argued that the service level agreements and acknowledgment of debt entered into with the first respondent were constitutionally invalid. The applicant sought leave to oppose the relief applied for by the first respondent and requested costs on a higher scale, including the costs of senior counsel.
- Respondent
- The first respondent opposed the rescission and variation of the default judgment, maintaining that the original amount was correct. The respondent argued that the service level agreements and acknowledgment of debt were valid and enforceable. The respondent opposed the applicant's request for leave to oppose and disputed the claim for costs on a higher scale.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 42(1)(b) Uniform Rules of Court
A court may correct a patent error in its order under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
- 02
Section 172(1)(a) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
Agreements that are inconsistent with the Constitution are invalid and may be declared as such by the court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the amount stated in the original order was a typographical error and that the correct amount was R27 000 000.00. The court exercised its power under Rule 42(1)(b) to vary the order accordingly. Furthermore, the service level agreements and acknowledgment of debt between the applicant and first respondent were declared constitutionally invalid, as they did not comply with constitutional requirements. The applicant was granted leave to oppose the relief sought by the first respondent within five days. The first respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of employing senior counsel, on the scale as between party and party (Scale C).
Obiter and limits
- The court emphasized the importance of accuracy in court orders, particularly where substantial amounts are involved.
- The court noted that parties must ensure that agreements comply with constitutional standards to avoid invalidity.
Court disposition
Order amended to correct the judgment amount; service level agreements and acknowledgment of debt declared constitutionally invalid; leave granted to applicant to oppose; costs awarded against first respondent.
- The default judgment granted by the Registrar of this Court on 15 March 2024 in the amount of R27 000 000.00 is rescinded.
- The service level agreements entered into between the applicant and first respondent on 11 August 2020 and 8 December 2022, and the acknowledgment of debt entered into on 20 February 2023, are declared constitutionally invalid.
- Leave is granted to the applicant to file and deliver its notice of intention to oppose the relief applied for by the first respondent in case no. 2237/2023 within five days.
- The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application (Part A and Part B) on the scale as between party and party (Scale C), including the costs of employing senior counsel.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
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.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable:
NO
Of Interest to other Judges: NO
Circulate to Magistrates: NO
CASE NO: 2237/2023
In the matter between: MALUTI-A-PHOFUNG
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant And
KILL CRIME SECURITY SERVICE (PTY) LTD 1st Respondent
FIRST
NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LTD 2nd Respondent
SHERIFF
OF PHUTHADITJHABA HIGH COURT 3rd Respondent
AMEDED ORDER
JUDGMENT BY: MHLAMBI, J
DELIVERED ON: 06 FEBRUARY 2025
[1] On 30 January 2025, I granted an order in paragraph 1 which reads as follows: “The default judgment granted by the Registrar of this Court on 15 March 2024 in the amount of R27 000.00 is rescinded.” The amount of R 27 000.00 is a typing error and the particular paragraph in the order should read as follows:
“The default judgment granted by the Registrar of this Court on 15 March 2024 in the amount of R27 000 000.00 is rescinded.”
[2] This variation is done in terms of Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
[3] The varied order should read as follows:
ORDER:
1. The default judgment granted by the Registrar of this Court on 15 March 2024 in the amount of R27 000 000.00 is rescinded.
2. The service level agreements:
2.1 entered into and concluded between the Applicant and the First Respondent on or about 11 August 2020;
2.2. entered into and concluded between the Applicant and the First Respondent on or about 8 December 2022; and
2.3. the acknowledgment of debt entered into and concluded between the Applicant and the First Respondent on or about 20 February 2023, are declared constitutionally invalid.
3. Leave is granted to the Applicant to file and deliver its notice of intention to oppose the relief applied for by the First Respondent [as Plaintiff] in the matter under case no. 2237/2023, within a period of 5 days.
4. The First respondent is ordered to pay costs of this application (Part A and Part B) on the scale as between party and party (Scale C) including the costs of employing senior counsel.
MHLAMBI, J
On behalf of Applicant: Adv. FW Botes SC Instructed by: Rossouws Attorneys 119 President Reitz Ave Westdene Bloemfontein On behalf of the Respondent: Adv. LR Bomela Instructed by: Tshepo Thusi Attorneys Inc 2nd Floor Finbond Building 6 Elizabeth Street Bloemfontein
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.