About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1229
|
|
Liberty Holdings v Maloka and Another (21/19942) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1229 (17 November 2024)
THE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case
no 21/19942
(1)
REPORTABLE: Yes☐/ No ☒
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
Yes☐ / No ☒
(3)
REVISED: Yes ☐ / No ☐
17 October 2024
WJ du Plessis
In
the matter between:
LIBERTY
HOLDINGS
First
Applicant
and
RAKOKWANE
MALOKA
First
Respondent
STANDARD
BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA
Second
Respondent
And
in the matter between:
THE
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
Applicant
And
RAKOKWANE
MALOKA
Respondent
And
in the matter of:
LIBERTY
HOLDINGS
First
applicant
STANDARD
BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA
Second
applicant
And
RAKOKWANE
MALOKA
Respondent
Coram:
Du Plessis AJ
Heard
on:
16 August 2024
Decided
on:
17 October 2024, variation 8 November 2024
This
judgment has been delivered by uploading it to the CaseLines digital
database of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of
South Africa,
Johannesburg, and by e-mail to the attorneys of record of the
parties. The deemed date and time of the delivery is
10H00 on 17
October 2024.
JUDGMENT: VARIATION OF
ORDER in terms of RULE 42(1)(b)
DU
PLESSIS AJ
[1]
This is a variation of the order this court granted on 17
October 2024 to correct a patent error or omission in the judgment
handed
down.
[2]
In paragraph 32 of the judgment, I found:
Thus,
I am satisfied that the applicants made out a case in terms of Rule
47(4), and I am satisfied that this is an instance where
the main
application should be dismissed.
[3]
This
was not reflected in the order. In other words, the order did not
reflect the court’s intention as expressed in the judgment.
The
intention of the court is ascertainable from the sentence. Upon
reading the judgment as a whole, together with the order, it
is clear
that there is an omission in the order itself that can be corrected
mero
motu
.
Such
a variation to clarify the order
[1]
does not alter the substance of the judgment
[2]
and thus may be corrected in terms of Rule 42(1)(b).
Order
[4]
The following order is made:
1. The main
application is dismissed.
2. The respondent,
Rakokwane Maloka, is declared a vexatious litigant as contemplated in
section 2(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings
Act 3 of 1956.
3. The respondent
shall not institute any legal proceedings against any person in any
court without the leave of this Court
or any judge of this Court.
Such leave shall not be granted unless the Court or the Judge is
satisfied that the proceedings the
respondent wishes to institute are
not an abuse of the process of the Court and that there is a
prima
facie
ground for the intended proceedings.
4. The respondent
is to pay the costs of the application on scale C.
WJ
du Plessis
Acting
Judge of the High Court
For
the Applicants:
R
Itzkin and Z Manentsa
instructed
by SGV Inc and Jason Michael Smith Inc
For
the Respondents:
Self-represented
[1]
Thompson
v South African Broadcasting Corporation
[2000] ZASCA 76
;
2001 (3) SA 746
(SCA) at 748 – 9.
[2]
S v
Wells
1990 (1) SA 816
(A) 820C-F ,
Seatle
v Protea Assurance Co Ltd
1984 (2) SA 537
(C).