South Africa Custodial Services (Louis Trichardt (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (A291/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1059 (31 October 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 1059
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- M.M Mabesele, E. Van der Schyff, M. Moleleki
- Case number
- A291/2022
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- M.M Mabesele, E. Van der Schyff, M. Moleleki
- Case number
- A291/2022
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that its omission to include a decision on the second application in the main judgment constituted a patent error as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Upon reconsideration, the court confirmed that the second application lacked merit and should be dismissed. The order of Cloete J dated 17 October 2017 was held to be a final decision under the Anti-Prescription Agreement concluded by the parties. Costs were awarded to the successful party in each application, with the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs on scale C, including the costs of two counsel, in respect of the second application.
Court disposition
The appeal is upheld in respect of the first application and dismissed in respect of the second application. The order of the court a quo is set aside for the first application. Costs are awarded to the successful party in each application.
Orders
- The appeal is upheld, partially.
- The order of the court a quo dismissing the appellant’s first application (case no. 40420/2020) is set aside.
- The order of Cloete J dated 17 October 2017 (in respect of the first application) constitutes a final decision as contemplated in the Anti-Prescription Agreement concluded by the parties on 13 October 2016.
- The appeal in respect of the second application is dismissed.
- The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs on scale C, including the costs of two counsel.
02
Material facts
Parties
South Africa Custodial Services (Louis Trichardt (Pty) Ltd
AppellantCommissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Supplementary Judgment Varying Previous Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the omission in the main judgment regarding the second application should be rectified.
- 02
Whether the order of Cloete J dated 17 October 2017 constitutes a final decision under the Anti-Prescription Agreement.
- 03
Whether costs should be awarded to the successful party in each application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant's attorneys requested a variation of the main judgment to include a decision on the second application, arguing that the omission should be rectified to reflect the court's findings as set out in paragraphs 20-22 of the original judgment. They maintained that the order of Cloete J is a final decision under the Anti-Prescription Agreement and that costs should follow the result for each application.
- Respondent
- The respondent submitted that any variation under Rule 42(1)(b) should be exercised sparingly and only to the extent of the omission. They argued that the second application lacked merit and supported the dismissal of the appeal in respect of that application, with costs awarded to the respondent.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court
A court may rescind or vary an order or judgment in which there is an ambiguity, patent error, or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error, or omission.
- 02
General principle of costs in South African civil procedure
Costs should be awarded to the successful party in respect of each application unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that its omission to include a decision on the second application in the main judgment constituted a patent error as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Upon reconsideration, the court confirmed that the second application lacked merit and should be dismissed. The order of Cloete J dated 17 October 2017 was held to be a final decision under the Anti-Prescription Agreement concluded by the parties. Costs were awarded to the successful party in each application, with the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs on scale C, including the costs of two counsel, in respect of the second application.
Obiter and limits
- The exceptional power to vary a judgment under Rule 42(1)(b) should be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases of ambiguity, error, or omission.
- The Anti-Prescription Agreement between the parties requires clarity on what constitutes a final decision for the purposes of prescription.
Court disposition
The appeal is upheld in respect of the first application and dismissed in respect of the second application. The order of the court a quo is set aside for the first application. Costs are awarded to the successful party in each application.
- The appeal is upheld, partially.
- The order of the court a quo dismissing the appellant’s first application (case no. 40420/2020) is set aside.
- The order of Cloete J dated 17 October 2017 (in respect of the first application) constitutes a final decision as contemplated in the Anti-Prescription Agreement concluded by the parties on 13 October 2016.
- The appeal in respect of the second application is dismissed.
- The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs on scale C, including the costs of two counsel.
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
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO:A291/2022
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 31/10/2024
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICA CUSTODIAL
SERVICES
(LOUIS TRICHARDT (PTY) LTD
APPELLANT
And
THE COMMISSIONER FOR
THE SOUTH AFRICAN
REVENUE
SERVICE
RESPONDENT
CORAM: MABESELE J; VAN DER SCHYFF J AND MOLELEKI AJ:
JUDGMENT
MABESELE J:
[1] This supplementary judgement seeks to vary[1] the order in the main judgment, dated 21/08/2024, persuant to a request by the appellant’s attorneys per correspondence dated 12 September 2024. The respondent made submissions in this regard. After we had considered both the request and submissions by both parties and revisited our judgment we are of the firm view that the order should be varied in order to include our decision in respect of the second application which was dealt with in paragraphs 20-22 of our judgment. This is clearly an omission on our part. We found no merit in the second application as stated in paragraph 22 of the judgement.
[2] As to the issue of costs, both counsel had already argued that costs should be awarded to a successful party in respect of each application.
[3] For these reasons the order dated 21/08/2024 is varied as follows:
3.1. The appeal is upheld, partially
3.2. The order of the court a quo which dismissed the appellant’s first application (case no. 40420/2020) is set aside.
3.2.1. The order of Cloete J, dated 17 October 2017, (in respect of the first application) constitutes a “final decision” as contemplated in the Anti- Prescription Agreement which was concluded by the parties on 13 October 2016.
3.4. The appeal in respect of the second application is dismissed.
3.4.1. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs on scale C, including the costs of two counsel.
M.M MABESELE
(Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division)
E.VAN DER SCHYFF
(Judge of the High Court , Gauteng Division)
M.MOLELEKI
(Acting Judge of the High Court, Gauteng Division)
[1] Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court provides that the Court may, in addition to any other powers it may have, mero motu or upon the application of any party affected, rescind or vary an order or judgment in which there is an ambiguity, or patent error or mission but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error or omission. The respondent, in paragraph 5 of the submissions, dated 20 September 2024, correctly states that this exceptional rule should be exercised sparingly.
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.