1) This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of this court under case numbers 992/2016 and 1414/2016 (the rescission judgment). The judgment dealt with two applications for the rescission and setting aside of three judgments of this court delivered under the same case numbers. Both rescission applications (the applications) were dismissed with costs.
2) The background to the applications was comprehensively dealt with in the judgment and it is not necessary to say anything further with regard thereto. The applications were based on the provisions of Court Rule 42, more specifically Rules 42(1)(b) and 42(1)(c). This Court found that the grounds relied upon by the applicants in support of the application do not constitute an error as envisaged in sub-paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) of Rule 42. The grounds relied upon were summarised in paragraphs 30 to 31 of the rescission judgment.
3) It was found that what the applicants contended were errors or mistakes in the three judgments, was not what Rule 42(1)(b) and (c) envisaged to constitute an ambiguity, patent error, omission, or a mistake common to the parties. Instead, what the applicant’s based the rescission applications on were nothing more than errors or mistakes in the reasoning and the findings of the court that delivered the three judgments. The applicants were accordingly seeking a correction of what they considered to have been wrong decision(s) on the merits, and that their appropriate remedy in the circumstances was an appeal, a remedy which they have already pursued.