A***@gmail.com
2013-12-28 16:38:23 UTC
We need a 'za.legal' news group. Or is there some legal-blog.
Private-web-pages are like nobody being prepared to use public transport.
That's why you got hit with e-tolls. Ha !
Constitutional law Prof P. de Vos has closed the comments access to his
blog, after receiving crude homophobic comments. But he provoked it.
Previously he wrote:-
42 Variation and Rescission of Orders
(1) The court may, in addition to any other powers it may have, mero
motu or upon the application of any party affected, rescind or vary:
(a) An order or judgment erroneously sought or erroneously granted in
the absence of any party affected thereby;
[Para. (a) as substituted by GN R235 of 18 February 1966]
(b) an order or judgment in which there is an ambiguity, or a patent
error or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error or
omission;
(c) an order or judgment granted as the result of a mistake common to
the parties.
(2) Any party desiring any relief under this rule shall make application
therefor upon notice to all parties whose interests may be affected
by any variation sought.
(3) The court shall not make any order rescinding or varying any order
or judgment unless satisfied that all parties whose interests may be
affected have notice of the order proposed.
IMO "mero motu" means the Court may "also amended the original order
without having received an application" from any party desiring any
relief under this rule.
Where have I gone wrong?
== TIA.
Private-web-pages are like nobody being prepared to use public transport.
That's why you got hit with e-tolls. Ha !
Constitutional law Prof P. de Vos has closed the comments access to his
blog, after receiving crude homophobic comments. But he provoked it.
Previously he wrote:-
Acting judge Halgryn, dismissing the ANC's application for leave to
appeal, has now provided reasons for the original order. That order was,
of course, a legal nonsense, but that has not prevented the acting judge
from providing a set of rather incoherent and embarrassingly uninformed
justifications for granting the order.
He has also amended the original order without having received an
application in terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(1)(b) of the
Uniform Rules of Court for a rescission or variation of the order.
But my copy reads:-appeal, has now provided reasons for the original order. That order was,
of course, a legal nonsense, but that has not prevented the acting judge
from providing a set of rather incoherent and embarrassingly uninformed
justifications for granting the order.
He has also amended the original order without having received an
application in terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(1)(b) of the
Uniform Rules of Court for a rescission or variation of the order.
42 Variation and Rescission of Orders
(1) The court may, in addition to any other powers it may have, mero
motu or upon the application of any party affected, rescind or vary:
(a) An order or judgment erroneously sought or erroneously granted in
the absence of any party affected thereby;
[Para. (a) as substituted by GN R235 of 18 February 1966]
(b) an order or judgment in which there is an ambiguity, or a patent
error or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error or
omission;
(c) an order or judgment granted as the result of a mistake common to
the parties.
(2) Any party desiring any relief under this rule shall make application
therefor upon notice to all parties whose interests may be affected
by any variation sought.
(3) The court shall not make any order rescinding or varying any order
or judgment unless satisfied that all parties whose interests may be
affected have notice of the order proposed.
IMO "mero motu" means the Court may "also amended the original order
without having received an application" from any party desiring any
relief under this rule.
Where have I gone wrong?
== TIA.