Mphephu-Ramabulana Royal Family v Premier Limpopo Province and Others (2016/2022) [2022] ZALMPTHC 12 (14 December 2022)

Mphephu-Ramabulana Royal Family v Premier Limpopo Province and Others (2016/2022) [2022] ZALMPTHC 12 (14 December 2022)

The court found that the omission in the costs order, specifically the failure to include costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel, constituted a patent error or omission as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(b). The court intended to grant such costs in line with the fifth respondent's prayer and submissions during the hearing. The omission fell within the exceptions permitting variation of a final order, and the court exercised its power to vary the order mero motu to reflect its true intention and ensure the costs order was complete and accurate.

Citation
[2022] ZALMPTHC 12
Parties
Applicant: Mphephu-Ramabulana Royal Family; Respondent: Premier Limpopo Province; Respondent: Member of Executive Council, Co-operative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Toni Peter Mphephu-Ramabulana; Respondent: Masindi Clementine Mphephu
Court
Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2022
Case Number
2016/2022
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Variation Order Under Rule 42(1)(b) Following Main Judgment
Outcome
The costs order in the main judgment was varied to include costs occasioned by employment of two counsel for the applicant and fifth respondent.
Judges
AML Phatudi
Legal Topics
Variation of Order, Costs Award, Rule 42 Application
Civil Procedure Variation of Order Costs Award Rule 42 Application

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mphephu-Ramabulana Royal Family

Applicant

Premier Limpopo Province

Respondent

Member of Executive Council, Co-operative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Toni Peter Mphephu-Ramabulana

Respondent

Masindi Clementine Mphephu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Variation Order Under Rule 42(1)(b) Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the omission in the costs order constitutes a patent error or omission justifying variation under Rule 42(1)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the costs order should include costs occasioned by employment of two counsel for the applicant and fifth respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the omission in the costs order, specifically the failure to include costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel, constituted a patent error or omission as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(b). The court intended to grant such costs in line with the fifth respondent's prayer and submissions during the hearing. The omission fell within the exceptions permitting variation of a final order, and the court exercised its power to vary the order mero motu to reflect its true intention and ensure the costs order was complete and accurate.

Court Disposition

The costs order in the main judgment was varied to include costs occasioned by employment of two counsel for the applicant and fifth respondent.

Orders

  • Paragraph 37.3 in the main judgment and order is varied and replaced with: 'The first and second respondents are ordered to pay, on party and party scale, costs, including costs occasioned by employment of two counsel, of the applicant and the fifth respondent, the one paying, the other to be absolved.'