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	1st Applicant

ARM MINING CONSORTIUM LIMITED	2nd Applicant

and

MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES	1st Respondent

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF	2nd Respondent
MINERAL RESOURCES

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL : MINERAL REGULATION,	3rd Respondent
DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES

REGIONAL MANAGER, LIMPOPO REGION, DEPARTMENT	4th Respondent
OF MINERAL RESOURCES

GENORAH RESOURCES (PTY) LTD	5th Respondent

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

INTERNATIONAL GOLDFIELDS LTD	7th Respondent

MORUTHANE BEN SEKHUKHUNE N.O.	8th Respondent

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

MYELETI MINING (PTY) LTD	10th Respondent

THE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL OF THE BENGWENYAMA-YA	11th Respondent
MASWATI COMMUNITY

ROKA PHASA PHOKWANE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL	12th Respondent

MIRACLE UPON MIRACLE INVESTMENTS (PTYD) LTD	13th Respondent

NKWE PLATINUM LTD	14th 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 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14th 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 8th and 9th 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 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 14th respondents , including the costs of two counsel."

___________________
AC BASSON
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT