---

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,

JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO: 38630/2019

In the matter between:

OAKBAY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD                                                 First Intervening Party

CHARLES KING SA                                                                      Second Intervening Party

Case no 39472/2019

K2015211368 (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD T/A EXCA                   Third Intervening Party

MINING

And

CHAVONNES BADENHORST ST CLAIR COOPER N.O                               First Applicant

THEA CHRISTINA LOURENS N.O.                                                           Second Applicant

(In their capacities as joint liquidators of Westdawn

Investments (Pty) Limited)

Case Number 38647/2019

And

KURT ROBERT KNOOP N.O                                                                     First Respondent

JOHAN LOUIS KLOPPER N.O                                                             Second Respondent

JUANITO MARTIN DAMONS N.O                                                            Third Respondent

KGASHANE CHRISTOPHER MONYELA N.O                                       Fourth Respondent

KOORNFONTEIN MINES (PTY) LIMITED (IN BUSINESS                        Fifth Respondent

RESCUE)

BLACK ROYALTY MINERALS (PTY) LIMITED                                        Sixth Respondent

THE ORCHID CONSORTIUM                                                              Seventh Respondent

ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED                                                        Eighth Respondent

LURCO GROUP SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED                                  Ninth Respondent

ALL AFFECTED PARTIES TO KOORNFONTEIN MINES                       Tenth Respondent

(PTY) LIMITED (IN BUSINESS RESCUE)

 

VARIATION ORDER

MATOJANE J

[1] On 28 January 2020, before hearing the various applications brought before me and having heard argument on a point in limine taken by the sixth respondent to the effect that there was a fatal non-joinder in that all affected parties in the business rescue proceedings of the fifth respondent had not been joined as parties, I made an order dismissing all applications.

[2] It has since transpired that the order is ambiguous, as the court inadvertently omitted to reflect to other cases in the heading of the judgement. Those other cases are the Westdawn matter under case no. 38647/2019, and the Charles King matter under case number 39412/2019, together with the relevant intervening parties.

[3] The judgement further refers to Charles King’s intervention application in the Westdawn matter in which it sought a postponement of that matter but does not refer to Charles King’s main application under case number 39412/2019 in which Charles King sought to interdict the business rescue practitioners from transferring Koornfontein assets pending the outcome of the arbitration appeal.

[4] It is trite that a judgement may not to be changed after its pronouncement. The exception to the general rule is when the order granted, through some mistake, does not express the true intention of the court, or where the order is ambiguous. At common law the court has the inherent power in such circumstances to correct its own judgement.

[5] Trollip JA in Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro A-G[1] held that:

“The Court may clarify its judgement or order, if, on a proper interpretation, the meaning the of remains obscure, ambiguous or otherwise uncertain, so as to give effect to its true intention, provided it does not thereby alter the sense and substance of the judgement or order”

[6] Rule 42(1)(b) the Uniform Rules of Court  provides for the variation of an order or judgement in which there is an ambiguity, or a patented error or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity or error or omission.

[7] In the result the order I made on the 28 January 2020 is varied to include all parties relevant to these proceedings and their details appears in the heading of the order.

 

 

__________________________

JUSTICE K E MATOJANE

 JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

 

 

 

 

Appearances

Counsel for first intervening party: Advocate Mare Leathern SC

Advocate L van Gass

Attorney for first intervening party: Van Der Merwe Attorneys

Counsel for second intervening party: Advocate PF Louw SC

Advocate N Farooqui

Attorney for second intervening party: Ghani Mayet Attorneys

Counsel for third intervening party:

Attorney for third intervening party: SUN Attorneys

Counsel for applicants: CJ Walker (John Walker Attorneys)

Attorney for applicants: John Walker Attorneys

Counsel for first to fifth respondents: Advocate Panayiotis Statis SC

Advocate GD Wickins

Attorney for first to fifth respondents: Smit Sewgoolam Inc Attorneys

Counsel for sixth respondents: Advocate John Suttner SC

Advocate Johan Smit

Attorney for sixth respondents: Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc

Counsel for seventh respondents:

Attorney for seventh respondents: The Orchid Consortium

Counsel for eighth respondents: Advocate Dennis Fine SC

Advocate Faizel Ismail

Advocate Portia Jane Daniell

Attorney for eighth respondents: Lawtons Africa 

Counsel for ninth respondents: Advocate A E bham SC

Advocate L Hollander

Attorney for ninth respondents: SVWG Inc Attorneys 

 

[1] 1977(4) at 307. See also Estate Garlick v Commissioner of Inland Revenue 1934 AD 499

---