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 1059
|
|
South Africa Custodial Services (Louis Trichardt (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (A291/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1059 (31 October 2024)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO:A291/2022
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/ NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED.
DATE: 31/10/2024
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICA CUSTODIAL
SERVICES
(LOUIS
TRICHARDT (PTY) LTD
APPELLANT
And
THE COMMISSIONER FOR
THE SOUTH AFRICAN
REVENUE
SERVICE
RESPONDENT
CORAM: MABESELE J; VAN
DER SCHYFF J AND MOLELEKI AJ:
JUDGMENT
MABESELE
J:
[1]
This supplementary judgement seeks to vary
[1]
the
order in the main judgment, dated 21/08/2024, persuant to a request
by the appellant’s attorneys per correspondence dated
12
September 2024. The respondent made submissions in this regard. After
we had considered both the request and submissions by
both parties
and revisited our judgment we are of the firm view that the order
should be varied in order to include our decision
in respect of the
second application which was dealt with in paragraphs 20-22 of our
judgment. This is clearly an omission on our
part. We found no merit
in the second application as stated in paragraph 22 of the judgement.
[2] As
to the issue of costs, both counsel had already argued that costs
should be awarded to a successful party
in respect of each
application.
[3] For these
reasons the order dated 21/08/2024 is varied as follows:
3.1. The appeal is
upheld, partially
3.2. The order of
the court
a quo
which dismissed the appellant’s first
application (case no. 40420/2020) is set aside.
3.2.1. The order of
Cloete J, dated 17 October 2017, (in respect of the first
application) constitutes a “final decision”
as
contemplated in the Anti- Prescription Agreement which was concluded
by the parties on 13 October 2016.
3.4. The appeal in
respect of the second application is dismissed.
3.4.1. The appellant is
ordered to pay the respondent’s costs on scale C, including the
costs of two counsel.
M.M MABESELE
(
Judge
of the High Court Gauteng Division)
E.VAN DER SCHYFF
(Judge of the High
Court , Gauteng Division)
M.MOLELEKI
(Acting Judge of
the High Court, Gauteng Division)
[1]
Rule
42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court provides that the Court may,
in addition to any other powers it may have,
mero
motu
or
upon the application of any party affected, rescind or vary an order
or judgment in which there is an ambiguity, or patent
error or
mission but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error or omission.
The respondent, in paragraph 5 of the submissions,
dated 20
September 2024,
correctly
states
that this exceptional rule should be exercised sparingly.