---

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO: 7883/2007

Reportable: No

Of interest to other judges: No

Revised.

30/5/2017

In the matter between:

RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINES LIMITED                                                   1^st Applicant

ARM MINING CONSORTIUM LIMITED                                                            2^nd Applicant

and

MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES                                                       1^st Respondent

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF                                                2^nd Respondent

MINERAL RESOURCES

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL : MINERAL REGULATION,                     3^rd Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES

REGIONAL MANAGER, LIMPOPO REGION, DEPARTMENT                    4^th Respondent

OF MINERAL RESOURCES

GENORAH RESOURCES (PTY) LTD                                                           5^th Respondent

NKWE PLATINUM (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD                                        6^th Respondent

INTERNATIONAL GOLDFIELDS LTD                                                          7^th Respondent

MORUTHANE BEN SEKHUKHUNE N.O.                                                    8^th Respondent

BAUBA A HLABIRWA MINING INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD                        9^th Respondent

MYELETI MINING (PTY) LTD                                                                     10^th Respondent

THE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL OF THE BENGWENYAMA-YA                  11^th Respondent

MASWATI COMMUNITY

ROKA PHASA PHOKWANE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL                            12^th Respondent

MIRACLE UPON MIRACLE INVESTMENTS (PTYD) LTD                         13^th Respondent

NKWE PLATINUM LTD                                                                               14^th Respondent

 

JUDGMENT: VARIATION

 

AC BASSON, J

 

[1] On 1 February 2017 this court handed down a judgment with the following order made in paragraph [13] of the order (consisting of 13 paragraphs):

"Order

[106] In the event the following order is made:

"13. The applicants jointly and severally are ordered to pay the costs of the 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, and 14^th respondents."

[2] This order as it appears in the typed judgment omitted to refer to the gth respondent (Bauba A Hlabirwa Mining Investments (Pty) Ltd). I have since perused the records and I am in agreement with the submission that this omission is a patent error or omission of a typographical nature as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court and one which this court may vary upon the application of any party affected thereby. I may also briefly point out that it is clear from a reading of the judgment that the 8^th and 9^th respondents were at all material times represented by the same legal team and that they are referred to in the judgment as the "Bauba respondents".

[3] The same order in paragraph [13] unfortunately also contains a further patent error or omission in that the order does not expressly refer to the costs of two counsel where it is clear from the record that such order ought to have been included.

[4] In the event the following varied order is made:

"Order

[106] In the event the following order is made:

"13. The applicants , jointly and severally , are ordered to pay the costs of the 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 9^th and 14^th respondents , including the costs of two counsel."

 

___________________

AC BASSON

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

---