CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

LA Group (Pty) Ltd v Stable Brands (Pty) Ltd and Another

Citation(650/2020) [2021] ZASCA 161 (25 November 2022)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Intellectual Property LawTrade Mark Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Civil Procedure

Facts of the Case

This is a supplementary judgment dealing with the correction of a patent error in an order previously granted on 22 February 2022. The original order dealt with the removal of certain trade mark registrations from the register. Paragraph 2(c) of the original order incorrectly stated the registration number as '2013/31832' when it should have been '2014/31832' for a POLO PONY & PLAYER DEVICE trade mark in class 9. On 12 October 2022, the parties jointly brought the patent error to the attention of the Court's registrar and sought correction of the order.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal has the power to correct a patent error in its own order
  • Whether an order in rem affecting a public register (the trade marks register) may be corrected

Judicial Outcome

The court ordered that paragraph 2(c) of the order granted in this matter be amended by the deletion of '2013' and the substitution thereof with '2014'.

Ratio Decidendi

A court has the power to correct a patent error in its own order, particularly where the order is one in rem that affects a public register such as the trade marks register. This power derives from the court's inherent jurisdiction to correct clerical or obvious errors in its orders to ensure they accurately reflect the court's intention.

Obiter Dicta

The court made no obiter observations in this brief procedural judgment. The judgment was strictly limited to the correction of the identified patent error and did not venture into any broader legal principles beyond what was necessary for the determination of the application for correction.

Legal Significance

This judgment reaffirms the well-established principle in South African law that courts have inherent power to correct patent errors in their own orders. It is particularly significant in confirming that this power extends to orders in rem that affect public registers, such as the trade marks register, where accuracy is essential for public record-keeping and third-party reliance. The case demonstrates the practical application of the doctrine allowing correction of clerical or patent errors, especially where such errors affect public registers.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 4 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Afgri Grain Marketing (Pty) Ltd v Trustees for the time being of Copenship Bulkers A/S (in liquidation) and Others(797/2018) [2019] ZASCA 67 (29 May 2019)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that patent errors in orders may be corrected.

  • Stuttafords Stores (Pty) Ltd and Others v Salt of the Earth Creations (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 59/10) [2010] ZACC 14
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that an order in rem affecting a public register may be corrected.

  • Willem Jakobus Albertus Oosthuizen & another v The State(180/2018) [2020] ZASCA 1 (21 January 2020)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that patent errors in orders may be corrected.

  • Zitonix (Pty) Limited v K201250042 (South Africa) (Pty) Limited(290/2017) [2018] ZASCA 63 (21 May 2018)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that patent errors in orders may be corrected.

Cited By 2 Cases

  • Keenan Peter Noemdoe v The Minister of PoliceCase No. 2987/2018 (unreported, Eastern Cape Local Division, Gqeberha)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that arresting officers must take into account all reasonably available information including the arrestee's version, and cited as a…

  • Van der Nest NO v Minister of Police(154/2024) [2025] ZASCA 42 (10 April 2025)
    Applies

    Applied to emphasise that prior awards serve as a guide only and the primary purpose is solatium, not enrichment.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More Intellectual Property Law cases

  • Adams & Adams Attorneys v Pointer Fashion International CC(324/2013) [2014] ZASCA 11 (19 March 2014)
  • Adcock Ingram Intellectual Property (Pty) Ltd and Another v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd and Another(265/2011) [2012] ZASCA 39 (29 March 2012)
  • Adidas AG & another v Pepkor Retail Limited(187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3 (28 February 2013)
  • African Distillers Limited v Varun Beverages (Zimbabwe) (Pvt) LtdHH 734-25, HCHC687/23
  • Aktiebolaget Hässle and Another v Triomed (Pty) LtdCase No: 63/2002
  • Alliance Property Group (Pty) Ltd v Alliance Group Limited and Auction Alliance KwaZulu-Natal (Pty) Ltd(252/2010) [2011] ZASCA 14 (14 March 2011)
  • A M Moolla Group Limited and Others v The Gap Inc and Others(123/2004) [2005] ZASCA 84
  • A M Moolla Group Limited and Others v The Gap, Inc and OthersCase No 543/03

More South Africa cases

  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97