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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAFSHC 135
|
|
De Beer N.O. v Smith N.O. and Others - Addendum to Judgment (524.2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 135 (16 May 2024)
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
Reportable: NO
Of
Interest to other Judges: NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: NO
CASE
NO: 524/2020
In
the matter between:
JACOBUS
FREDERIK DE BEER N.O.
Applicant
[In
his capacity as Executor in the Estate
of
the Late Elizabeth Jacoba Bekker,
Estate
No. 7442[…]]
And
EURICH
RUWAYNE SMITH N.O.
1
st
Respondent
EUGENE
JANUARIE N.O.
ELZANA
LOURENS N.O.
[In
their capacities as Trustees in the
Insolvent
Estate of the Phillipus Andries
Olivier
as well as of Olivier & Ackerman Partnership]
ELRICH
RUWAYNE SMITH N.O.
2
nd
Respondent
DISLHAD
ISMAIL N.O.
[In
their
capacities
as Trustees
in the
Insolvent
Estate of Corne Ackerman,
ID
No: 7[…]]
JOHANNAJACOBALOURENS
3
rd
Respondent
ELIZABETH
JACOBA PRETORIUS
4
th
Respondent
LIZETTE
VAN TONDER (nee Pretorius)
5
th
Respondent
ELIZABETH
JACOLINE DE WET
6
th
Respondent
CORNELA
(CORRIE) S.A. BEKKER
7
th
Respondent
S-BRO
MEKELAARS/FINANSlёLE
8
th
Respondent
ADVISEURS
(PTY) LTD
THE
MASTER OF THE FREE STATE
9
th
Respondent
HIGH
COURT
NICOLAAS
MICHAEL SMITH N.O.
10
th
Respondent
ADDENDUM
TO JUDGMENT
[1]
It has been brought
to my attention by the first respondent's/first plaintiffs' attorneys
that the order on page ten (10) of my
judgment granted on 09 May
2024, incorrectly
mentioned that
only the two properties
in clauses 3.1
and 3.2 of the order were declared executable in favour of the
plaintiffs, and omitted to include the third property
known as
Portion 1 of Erf No: 4[…], Bethlehem, Free State Province
as indicated
in prayer 2.3 of the first plaintiffs notice of motion.
[2]
It is quite
clear that this was a patent clerical error as envisaged by Rule 42
(1)
(b) and
the order should have declared Portion 1 of Erf No: 4[…],
Bethlehem, Free State Province executable in favour of
the first
plaintiffs and should have been contained as clause 3.3 of the order.
The order is therefore amended as follows:
Order:
1.
The
application for the rescission of judgment is dismissed with costs
.
2.
The first
plaintiff's failure to execute against the movables that may still
vest in the Deceased Estate
:
Late EJ Bekker
(ID: 1[…]); with Estate Number 7442[…], who died on 20
November 2003, is condoned;
3.
Pursuant to
the Default Judgment granted on 15 December 2022 against
the
second and the third defendants in favour of the first plaintiff, the
following immovable properties that vest in the estate
referred to in
paragraph 2 above, are declared executable in favour of the first
plaintiff:
3.1
Eden Small
Holding No. 41 [also known as Agricultural Holding Danzig No.41],
district Bethlehem, Free State Province; and
3.2
Portion 0
(Remaining Extent) of Erf No. 4[…], Bethlehem, Free State
Province, and
3.3
Portion 1 of
Erf No: 4[…], Bethlehem, Free State Province
.
3.4
1
st
interested party and 2
nd
defendant to pay the costs of the Rule 46A application which shall
include the costs of the postponement of 21 September 2023.
MHLAMBI,
J