https://www.polity.org.za
Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
Home / Case Law / All Case Law RSS ← Back
Close

Email this article

separate emails by commas, maximum limit of 4 addresses

Verification Image. Please refresh the page if you cannot see this image.

Sponsored by

Close

Article Enquiry

Gobo Gcora Construction & Project and Others v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality and Another ; Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Others (992/16; 1414/2016) [2019] ZAECPEHC 40

Verification Image. Please refresh the page if you cannot see this image.
Close

Embed Video

Gobo Gcora Construction & Project and Others v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality and Another ; Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Others (992/16; 1414/2016) [2019] ZAECPEHC 40

12th July 2019

SAVE THIS ARTICLE      EMAIL THIS ARTICLE

Font size: -+

Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

 

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE      SAVE THIS ARTICLE ARTICLE ENQUIRY

To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here

Comment Guidelines

About

Polity.org.za is a product of Creamer Media.
www.creamermedia.co.za

Other Creamer Media Products include:
Engineering News
Mining Weekly
Research Channel Africa

Read more

Subscriptions

We offer a variety of subscriptions to our Magazine, Website, PDF Reports and our photo library.

Subscriptions are available via the Creamer Media Store.

View store

Advertise

Advertising on Polity.org.za is an effective way to build and consolidate a company's profile among clients and prospective clients. Email advertising@creamermedia.co.za

View options
Free daily email newsletter Register Now