South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2018 >> [2018] ZAGPPHC 297

| Noteup | LawCite

China Construction Bank Corporation Johannesburg Branch v Gobel Agentskappe CC and Others (52295/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 297 (2 May 2018)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO: 52295/2015

2/5/2018

Not reportable

Not of interest to other judges

Revised.

In the matter between:

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORPORATION

JOHANNESBURG BRANCH                                                                                    Plaintiff

and

GOBEL AGENTSKAPPE CC                                                                          1st Defendant

PETER HERMANN GOBEL                                                                           2nd Defendant

AUTOHAUS GOBEL NORTHCLIFF (PTY) LTD                                            3rd Defendant

ERF 7178 HATFIELD CC                                                                                4th Defendant

GENERAL HELPLINE CC                                                                              5th Defendant

QUICK LEAP INVESTMENTS 328 (PTY) LTD                                               6th Defendant

RED CORAL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD                                                       7th Defendant

SUNSET BAY TRADING 327 (PTY) LTD                                                       8th Defendant

 

JUDGMENT: VARIATION: POSTPONEMENT APPLICATION

 

AC BASSON, J

[1] On 31 July 2017 this Court refused an application for postponement brought by the first, second and fifth defendants. The application was dismissed ordering the third defendant to pay the costs occasioned by the postponement including the costs of two counsel.

[2] It has since been brought to my attention that this order contains a patent error. It was the first. second and fourth to seventh defendants who brought the application to postpone and not the third defendant. Furthermore, the first, second and fifth defendants should have been directed to pay the costs, jointly and severally. This is a patent error as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court and one which this court may vary upon the application of any party affected thereby.

[3] In the event, paragraph two of the order in respect of costs is varied as follows:

"Order

[2] The first, second and fifth defendants are ordered to pay the costs jointly and severally. Costs to include the cost of two counsel."

 

 

________________________

AC BASSON

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT