REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO: 38630/2019

(1)	REPORTABLE: YES / NO 
(2)	OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:  YES / NO
(3)	REVISED. 

 05 MARCH 2020                 JUDGE E MATOJANE                    			        

In the matter between:

OAKBAY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD				  First Intervening Party 

CHARLES KING SA 		 			       Second Intervening Party
Case no 39472/2019
K2015211368 (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD T/A EXCA   Third Intervening Party	
MINING 
											 	 
And

CHAVONNES BADENHORST ST CLAIR COOPER N.O		   First Applicant 

THEA CHRISTINA LOURENS N.O.				         Second Applicant 

(In their capacities as joint liquidators of Westdawn            
Investments (Pty) Limited)				
Case Number 38647/2019
				
And

KURT ROBERT KNOOP N.O					          First Respondent 

JOHAN LOUIS KLOPPER N.O 					     Second Respondent

JUANITO MARTIN DAMONS N.O 				         Third Respondent

KGASHANE CHRISTOPHER MONYELA N.O 			       Fourth Respondent

KOORNFONTEIN MINES (PTY) LIMITED (IN BUSINESS               Fifth Respondent
RESCUE)

BLACK ROYALTY MINERALS (PTY) LIMITED 		         Sixth Respondent

THE ORCHID CONSORTIUM 					Seventh Respondent

ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED 				   Eighth Respondent

LURCO GROUP SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED        	     Ninth Respondent

ALL AFFECTED PARTIES TO KOORNFONTEIN MINES 	    Tenth Respondent
(PTY) LIMITED (IN BUSINESS RESCUE) 
	                    			                            
___________________________________________________________________ 

VARIATION ORDER
___________________________________________________________________
MATOJANE J

[1]	On 28 January 2020, before hearing the various applications brought before me and having heard argument on a point in limine taken by the sixth respondent to the effect that there was a fatal non-joinder in that all affected parties in the business rescue proceedings of the fifth respondent had not been joined as parties, I made an order dismissing all applications.

[2]	It has since transpired that the order is ambiguous, as the court inadvertently omitted to reflect to other cases in the heading of the judgement. Those other cases are the Westdawn matter under case no. 38647/2019, and the Charles King matter under case number 39412/2019, together with the relevant intervening parties.

[3]	The judgement further refers to Charles King’s intervention application in the Westdawn matter in which it sought a postponement of that matter but does not refer to Charles King’s main application under case number 39412/2019 in which Charles King sought to interdict the business rescue practitioners from transferring Koornfontein assets pending the outcome of the arbitration appeal.

[4]	It is trite that a judgement may not to be changed after its pronouncement. The exception to the general rule is when the order granted, through some mistake, does not express the true intention of the court, or where the order is ambiguous. At common law the court has the inherent power in such circumstances to correct its own judgement.

[5]	Trollip JA in Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro A-G held that:

“The Court may clarify its judgement or order, if, on a proper interpretation, the meaning the of remains obscure, ambiguous or otherwise uncertain, so as to give effect to its true intention, provided it does not thereby alter the sense and substance of the judgement or order”

[6]	Rule 42(1)(b) the Uniform Rules of Court  provides for the variation of an order or judgement in which there is an ambiguity, or a patented error or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity or error or omission.

[7] In the result the order I made on the 28 January 2020 is varied to include all parties relevant to these proceedings and their details appears in the heading of the order.

__________________________
JUSTICE K E MATOJANE              
 JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, 
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

Appearances 

Counsel for first intervening party:			Advocate Mare Leathern SC
							Advocate L van Gass
									
Attorney for first intervening party:	   	Van Der Merwe Attorneys 
			
Counsel for second intervening party:	   	Advocate PF Louw SC 		      							Advocate N Farooqui 
Attorney for second intervening party: 		Ghani Mayet Attorneys 

Counsel for third intervening party:	   			      						
Attorney for third intervening party: 		SUN Attorneys 

Counsel for applicants:			   	CJ Walker (John Walker Attorneys)		      						
Attorney for applicants: 		      		John Walker Attorneys

Counsel for first to fifth respondents:	  	Advocate Panayiotis Statis SC
							Advocate GD Wickins		      						
Attorney for first to fifth respondents: 		Smit Sewgoolam Inc Attorneys

Counsel for sixth respondents:	  		Advocate John Suttner SC
							Advocate Johan Smit
		      						
Attorney for sixth respondents: 		      	Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc 

Counsel for seventh respondents:	  				      						
Attorney for seventh respondents: 		The Orchid Consortium 

Counsel for eighth respondents:	  		Advocate Dennis Fine SC
							Advocate Faizel Ismail
							Advocate Portia Jane Daniell
		      						
Attorney for eighth respondents: 		      	Lawtons Africa  

Counsel for ninth respondents:	  		Advocate A E bham SC
							Advocate L Hollander
		      						
Attorney for ninth respondents: 		      	SVWG Inc Attorneys