Christiaan De Jongh v Pieter Johannes Du Pisanie NO

This is a supplementary judgment correcting a numerical error in the court's main judgment delivered on 25 May 2004. The error related to Rabe's loss of earnings (verlies aan verdienste). The original judgment incorrectly stated in paragraph 68.2 that the trial court's award under this head was R1,906,225, when it was actually R1,096,225 as reflected in paragraph 2 of the main judgment. This numerical error led to a calculation error in the total damages award.

• Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal could correct a numerical and consequential calculation error in its own judgment through a supplementary judgment
• The correct calculation of damages including the curator bonis costs component

The appeal succeeded with costs. The trial court's order was set aside and replaced with judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of R3,163,116.80 as damages, plus interest at the rate prescribed by the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975 from 14 days after 23 December 2000 until date of payment. No costs order was made at that stage.

The Supreme Court of Appeal has the power to issue a supplementary judgment to correct numerical and consequential calculation errors in its own previous judgments. Such corrections are procedural in nature and do not affect the substantive legal principles decided in the main judgment.

The court noted that it was common cause (gemene saak) that the award for curator bonis costs should equal 7.8% of the previous three damage awards. This calculation method for curator bonis costs appears to have been agreed between the parties and was not a matter requiring judicial determination in this supplementary judgment.

This supplementary judgment demonstrates the Supreme Court of Appeal's inherent power to correct clerical or numerical errors in its own judgments to ensure mathematical accuracy and proper execution of its orders. It reflects the principle that courts have jurisdiction to rectify patent errors in their judgments without affecting the substantive legal principles decided.