INTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO DIVISION, THOHOYANDOU

CASE NUMBER: 2016/2022

In the matter between:

MPHEPHU- RAMABULANA ROYAL FAMILY	APPLICANT 

AND

THE PREMIER LIMPOPO PROVINCE	1ST RESPONDENT  
MEMBER OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, CO-OPERATIVE 
GOVERNANCE, HUMAN SETTLEMENTS AND T
RADITIONAL AFFAIRS	2ND RESPONDENT
MINISTER OF CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND
TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS	3RD RESPONDENT
TONI PETER MPHEPHU-RAMABULANA	4TH RESPONDENT
MASINDI CLEMENTINE MPHEPHU	5TH RESPONDENT

VARIATION ORDER IN TERMS OF RULE 42(1) (b)

AML PHATUDI J

[1]	This is a variation order envisaged in terms of Rule 42(1) (b) of the Uniform Rules of the High Court relating to the judgment I handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email and publication through SAFLII on 13 December 2022.  
[2]	On 14 December 2022, the fifth respondent’s attorney brought to my attention an error that slipped through in the order especially relating to costs. I find it inevitable to vary the costs order in terms of Rule 42 (1) (b) of the Uniform Rules of this court. 
[3]	The Rule provides that the court may, in addition to any other powers it may have, mero motu rescind or vary an order in which there is an ambiguity, or a patent error or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error or omission.
[4]	I am mindful of an established principle in our law that once a court has duly pronounced a final judgment or order, it has itself no authority to correct, alter or supplement it. There are, however, few exceptions to that rule. The court may vary the order only to the extent of an error or omission committed in the order. Among other exception is that ‘the court may correct a clerical, arithmetical or other error in its judgment or order so as to give effect to its true intention.’ (See Firestone South Africa (Pty) LTD v Genticuro A.G. 1977 (4) SA 298 at 307C-G)
[5]	I, at paragraph 37.3 of the main order, omitted to indicate that costs should include ‘costs occasioned by employment of two counsel where applicable’. I, in fact, intended to give effect to the fifth respondent’s prayer sought and submission made during the hearing relating to costs of two counsel.
[6]	I am thus of the view that the omission alluded to falls within the exception I mentioned earlier and, the costs order falls to be varied mero motu. 
[7]	I, in the result, make the following order.
Order
7.1	Paragraph 37.3 in the main judgment and order is varied and replaced with the following:
“The first and second respondents are ordered to pay, on party and party scale, costs, including costs occasioned by employment of two counsel, of the applicant and the fifth respondent, the one paying, the other to be absolved.”

AML PHATUDI 
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPLICANT	: 	MR S.O. RAVELE
INSTRUCTED BY 	: 	S.O. Ravele Attorneys
Makhado-Thohoyandou

FOR THE 1 and 2 RESPONDENTS: 	Adv. Z.S. MOTHUPI 
INSTRUCTED BY 	: 	State Attorneys.
Thohoyandou

FOR THE 5 RESPONDENT	:	Adv. J ROUX SC
Adv. L.F. TALJAARDT
INSTRUCTED BY	:	Hammann-Moosa
Incorporated-
Thohoyandou

HEARD	:	29 November 2022
JUDGMENT	:	13 December 2022
JUDGMENT VARIED	14 December 2022

JUDGEMENT	DATE	: Judgment handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email and publication through SAFLII. The date deemed handed down is 14 December 2022.