Steyn v Ngququ N.O and Others - Amendment Order (4133/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 224 (9 June 2023)

30 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Amendment Order — Variation of court order — Rule 42(1)(b) of Uniform Rules — Original order inadvertently omitting personal liability of first respondent for costs — Court granted amendment to reflect that first respondent, in his personal capacity, is to pay applicant’s costs on an attorney and client scale due to unprofessional handling of the matter.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAFSHC 224
|

|

Steyn v Ngququ N.O and Others - Amendment Order (4133/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 224 (9 June 2023)

SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA,
FREE STATE DIVISION,
BLOEMFONTEIN
Case No:4133/2022
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
CIRCULATE TO MAGISTRATES: NO
In the matter between:
DANẺ
STEYN
Applicant
and
ZWELIBANZI
WILLIAM NGQUQU N.O.
1
st
Respondent
(In
his capacity as the executor of the deceased estate of the
late
Petru Steyn, Estate Number 3[…])
MASTER
OF THE HIGH COURT BLOEMFONTEIN
2
nd
Respondent
THE
REGISTRAR OF DEED BLOEMFONTEIN
3rd
Respondent
WATERLAAGTE
VOERKRAAL (PTY) LTD
4
th
Respondent
MARIETA
STEYN
5
th
Respondent
AMENDMENT ORDER
JUDGMENT
BY
:
MHLAMBI,
J
DELIVERED
ON:
This amended order was
handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal
representatives by email and released
to SAFLI. The date and time for
the hand-down are deemed to be 12h30 on 09 June 2023.
[1]
On 23 January 2023, I granted an order in terms of which the first
respondent was ordered to pay
the applicant’s costs on an
attorney and client scale. The said order was influenced by my
finding in paragraph 30 of the
judgment which reads as follows: “
The
unprofessional manner that the first respondent handled this matter,
justifies that
he
be visited
with costs on a punitive scale.”
The
order inadvertently omitted that the first respondent,
in
his personal capacity
,
should pay the applicant’s costs on an attorney and client
scale.
[2]
The variation is done in terms of Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules
of Court.
[3]      The
varied order should therefore read as follows:
Order
1.
The first respondent, in his personal capacity, is to pay the
applicant’s costs on an attorney
and client scale.
MHLAMBI, J
On
behalf of the plaintiff:
Adv.
R Van Der Merwe
Instructed
by:
Graham
Attorneys
14A
Torbet Street
Noordhoek
Bloemfontein
On
behalf of the respondent:
Adv.
J Ferreira
Instructed
by:
Callis
Attorneys
12
Milner Road
Waverley
Bloemfontein