CCT75/10

[2011] ZACC 15

2011 (9) BCLR 891 (CC)

Cameron J

22 February 2011

21 April 2011

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3628

Application to rescind this Court's judgment and order in Mphela and Others v Haakdoornbult Boerdery CC and Others 2008] ZACC 5; 2008 (4) SA 488 (CC); 2008 (7) BCLR 675 (CC). See also earlier SCA judgment: Haakdoornbult Boerdery CC and Others v Mphela and Others 2007 (5) SA 596 (SCA); 2008 (7) BCLR 704 (SCA) and Land Claims Court judgments: Mphela and Others v Engelbrecht and Others [2005] 2 All SA 135 (LCC) and Mphela and Others v Engelbrecht and Others, Case No LCC 66/01, 1 June 2005, unreported.

An application for rescission or expungment of pronouncements of this Court?s judgment in terms of Rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of the High Court, which is applicable to this Court's proceedings. The applicant claimed rescission or expungement of paragraphs 54 and 56 of this Court?s decision in Mphela and Others v Haakdoornbult Boerdery CC and Others on the basis that it was a decision pertaining to the farm Pylkop in respect of which its claim was currently pending in the Land Claims Court. The applicant claimed that its right of access to courts in terms of section 34 of the Constitution was violated because it was unaware of the proceedings which culminated in the Haakdoornbult judgment. The first respondent whose claim to the Haakdoornbult farm had succeeded in the Haakdoornbult judgment opposed the rescission. The Court dismissed the application, finding that the Haakdoornbult judgment only pertained to the Haakdoornbult farm and contained no judicial rulings binding on the parties to the Pylkop claim because the parties, the cause of action, the relief sought and issue in dispute differed. The Court ordered the applicant and the State to pay jointly and severally the first respondent's costs including the costs of two counsel. The Court also ordered the applicant's counsel to pay the costs arising from the engagement of additional counsel by the first respondent out of his own pocket (de bonis propriis) because he unjustifiably accused the first respondent's legal team of fraudulent conduct. These accusations compelled the first respondent to brief the additional senior counsel. Judgment: Cameron J (unanimous).