REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO: 52295/2015

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