Liberty Holdings v Maloka and Another (21/19942) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1229 (17 November 2024)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 1229 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Liberty Holdings v Maloka and Another (21/19942) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1229 (17 November 2024) Liberty Holdings v Maloka and Another (21/19942) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1229 (17 November 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_1229.html sino date 17 November 2024 THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Case no 21/19942 (1) REPORTABLE: Yes☐/ No ☒ (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Yes☐ / No ☒ (3) REVISED: Yes ☐ / No ☐ 17 October 2024       WJ du Plessis In the matter between: LIBERTY HOLDINGS First Applicant and RAKOKWANE MALOKA First Respondent STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA Second Respondent And in the matter between: THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Applicant And RAKOKWANE MALOKA Respondent And in the matter of: LIBERTY HOLDINGS First applicant STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA Second applicant And RAKOKWANE MALOKA Respondent Coram: Du Plessis AJ Heard on: 16 August 2024 Decided on: 17 October 2024, variation 8 November 2024 This judgment has been delivered by uploading it to the CaseLines digital database of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, and by e-mail to the attorneys of record of the parties. The deemed date and time of the delivery is 10H00 on 17 October 2024. JUDGMENT: VARIATION OF ORDER in terms of RULE 42(1)(b) DU PLESSIS AJ [1] This is a variation of the order this court granted on 17 October 2024 to correct a patent error or omission in the judgment handed down. [2] In paragraph 32 of the judgment, I found: Thus, I am satisfied that the applicants made out a case in terms of Rule 47(4), and I am satisfied that this is an instance where the main application should be dismissed. [3] This was not reflected in the order. In other words, the order did not reflect the court’s intention as expressed in the judgment. The intention of the court is ascertainable from the sentence. Upon reading the judgment as a whole, together with the order, it is clear that there is an omission in the order itself that can be corrected mero motu . Such a variation to clarify the order [1] does not alter the substance of the judgment [2] and thus may be corrected in terms of Rule 42(1)(b). Order [4] The following order is made: 1.  The main application is dismissed. 2.  The respondent, Rakokwane Maloka, is declared a vexatious litigant as contemplated in section 2(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956. 3.  The respondent shall not institute any legal proceedings against any person in any court without the leave of this Court or any judge of this Court. Such leave shall not be granted unless the Court or the Judge is satisfied that the proceedings the respondent wishes to institute are not an abuse of the process of the Court and that there is a prima facie ground for the intended proceedings. 4.  The respondent is to pay the costs of the application on scale C. WJ du Plessis Acting Judge of the High Court For the Applicants: R Itzkin and Z Manentsa instructed by SGV Inc and Jason Michael Smith Inc For the Respondents: Self-represented [1] Thompson v South African Broadcasting Corporation [2000] ZASCA 76 ; 2001 (3) SA 746 (SCA) at 748 – 9. [2] S v Wells 1990 (1) SA 816 (A) 820C-F , Seatle v Protea Assurance Co Ltd 1984 (2) SA 537 (C). sino noindex make_database footer start