South Africa Custodial Services (Louis Trichardt (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (A291/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1059 (31 October 2024)

South Africa Custodial Services (Louis Trichardt (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (A291/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1059 (31 October 2024)

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.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1059
Parties
Appellant: South Africa Custodial Services (Louis Trichardt (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2024
Case Number
A291/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supplementary Judgment Varying Previous Order
Outcome
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.
Judges
M.M Mabesele, E. Van der Schyff, M. Moleleki
Legal Topics
Variation of Judgment, Finality of Decision, Costs Award, Anti Prescription Agreement
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Variation of Judgment Finality of Decision Costs Award Anti Prescription Agreement

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

South Africa Custodial Services (Louis Trichardt (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supplementary Judgment Varying Previous Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the omission in the main judgment regarding the second application should be rectified.
  2. 2 Whether the order of Cloete J dated 17 October 2017 constitutes a final decision under the Anti-Prescription Agreement.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded to the successful party in each application.

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.

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.