Policy, Law, Economics and Politics - Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
This privately-owned website is operated and maintained by Creamer Media
We have detected that the browser you are using is no longer supported. As a result, some content may not display correctly.
We suggest that you upgrade to the latest version of any of the following browsers:
         
close notification
25 May 2012
   
 
 
Article by: Creamer Media Reporter
 
 
 
 
DOWNLOAD
Mahlalela v Office of the Pension Fund Adjudicator (J283/2011) [2011] ZALCJHB 43 - 74 KB
 

Introduction


1. It has been brought to my attention that there is an obvious error in paragraph [10] of the judgment in this matter which was handed down on 23 February 2011. The following sentence appears in paragraph [10] of the judgment:


“When this application was finally brought, the applicant challenged the impending disciplinary enquiry itself which he had any length of on 10 February 2011.”


(emphasis added)


2. The underlined portion is clearly nonsensical and an obvious typographical error, not picked up in final editing.


3. Accordingly, paragraph [10] of the judgment is amended by the substitution of the sentence above with the following:


“When this application was finally brought, the applicant challenged the impending disciplinary enquiry itself which he had received notice of on 10 February 2011.”

Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter
 
 
 
 
  Photos
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advertisements:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Online Publishers Association