Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Meiring and Another v Jones (2985-2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 188 (26 February 2024)
The High Court varied an earlier order to correct a mistaken policy number, finding the error was clerical and that condonation for delay was justified.
United African Apostolic Church and Others v Mureri and Others (750/2019) [2020] ZALMPTHC 10 (15 June 2020)
The court found that the main judgment contained clerical errors in three orders: the omission of the words 'as the chairperson of the first applicant' in the third order, the incorrect date '22 December 2019' instead of '22 December 2018' in the fourth order, and the misspelling of 'carrying' as 'caring' in the sixth order. These errors were not substantive but clerical, and their correction was necessary to give effect to the true intention of the court as reflected in the notice of motion. Rule 42(1)(b) empowers the court to vary its own order to correct such errors. The court accordingly…
Source excerpt
Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v Gcora (508/2018) [2018] ZAECPEHC 47 (21 August 2018)
The High Court varied an earlier order under Rule 42 to add omitted references to the municipality’s executive officials and employees in a defamation interdict.
Plover's Nest Investment v De Haan (20590/2014) [2015] ZASCA 193 (30 November 2015)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a municipal clerk’s miscommunication did not replace a valid council resolution, so the building plan approval was set aside.
Ndaba v Mhlambi (AR 267/10) [2011] ZAKZPHC 17 (4 April 2011)
The court corrected patent clerical errors in the judgment heading and record of appearances under Rule 42(1)(b), amending the respondent’s name and attorneys.
H Lundbeck A/S and Another v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd (89/4476) [2008] ZACCP 3; 2008 BIP 79 (CP) (20 June 2008)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the errors in claims 6 and 7 of the patent were clerical in nature. The evidence provided was vague, lacked factual support, and did not explain how the errors occurred. The applicants' delay in seeking correction or amendment was found to be culpable, as they were aware of the errors for years but only acted when their patent was challenged by the respondent. The proposed amendments to claims 6 and 7 would impermissibly broaden the scope of the patent, offending section 51(7) of the Patents Act. As a result, the patent was not whol…
Source excerpt
Explore more
