About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPPHC 71
|
|
Native Child Africa (Pty) Ltd v Akinwale and Another (125850/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 71 (30 January 2024)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 125850/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
Date 30 January 2024
Signature
In
the matter between:
NATIVE
CHILD AFRICA (PTY) LTD
APPLICANT
and
MARY
OLUWATOBILOBA AKINWALE
FIRST RESPONDENT
LUTENDO
SIPHUMA
SECOND RESPONDENT
VARIATION
OF JUDGMENT
K
STRYDOM AJ
INTRODUCTION
1.
Subsequent to the handing down
of the judgment on the 25
th
of January 2024 in this matter, it was brough to my attention that
the judgment and order do not correctly reflect the orders that
were
made,
ex tempore
,
in Court, on the 19th of December 2023 in respect of the second
respondent.
2.
As indicated in the judgment,
I had struck the application against the 2nd respondent from the role
as being not urgent, however
the judgment erroneously reflects that
costs were reserved. On the 19th of December 2023 I had in fact
ordered that the second
respondent’s costs be paid by the
applicant which costs would include the costs of one council. This
order followed argument
regarding whether costs of two council should
be allowed.
3.
The present judgment also does
not reflect the details of the counsel for the 2nd respondent on the
last page. I am indebted to
Mr Ntjana for bringing these errors to my
attention and will ensure that his details are now correctly
reflected.
4.
As a result, I hereby vary the
judgment and order granted in this matter on the 25
th
of January 2024 as follows:
4.1.
The reference, in [3] of the
order delivered in terms of paragraph 109 of the judgment, is amended
to “respondent” is
amended to read “
first
respondent
.”
4.2.
The order per [8]
of
the order delivered in terms of paragraph 109 of the judgment, is
amended in its entirety to read:
4.2.1.
[
8]
”The costs of the application as between the applicant and the
first respondent are reserved.”
4.3.
The following paragraphs are
to be inserted immediately after [8], as amended
supra,
of the order under paragraph 109 of the judgment:
4.3.1.
[9] The application against
the second respondent is struck from the roll due to lack of urgency
4.3.2.
[10] The applicant is ordered to pay the
reasonable party and party costs of the second respondent, inclusive
of the costs pursuant
to the employment of one counsel.
4.4.
The final page of the judgment is to
include the details of the representatives of the second respondent,
as reflected in the final
page of this variation order.
K.
STRYDOM
ACTING
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Date of hearing: 20
December 2023
Date of judgment: 25
January 2024
Date of variation: 30
January 2024
APPEARANCES:
COUNSEL FOR
APPLICANT:
D. MUTEMWA
INSTRUCTED BY:
THOBAKGALE
ATTORNEYS INC.
COUNSEL
FOR 1
ST
RESPONDENTS:
B.
LUTHULI
INS
CCTED BY:
COWAN-HARPER
MADIKIZELA ATTORNEYS INC
COUNSEL
FOR 2
ND
RESPONDENTS:
K. M.
NTJANA
INSTRUCTED
BY:
S.
L. ATTORNEYS