Robert Morley Tindwa v ZB Bank Limited

This is a corrigendum to a judgment previously issued by the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe. On 2 November 2017, the appeal was heard by three judges: Guvava JA, Bhunu JA and Uchena JA. An administrative error occurred where the name of Mavangira JA appeared in the judgment prepared by Bhunu JA instead of Uchena JA's name. This error was caused by the fact that on 2 November 2017, Uchena JA exchanged files with Mavangira JA and sat in her stead, and Mavangira JA later sat in Uchena JA's stead on 13 November 2017. The appellant's attorneys brought this error to the court's attention.

• Whether the composition of the judicial panel hearing the appeal was correctly recorded in the original judgment
• Correction of clerical or administrative errors in court judgments

The corrigendum was issued correcting the administrative error by substituting Mavangira JA's name with Uchena JA's name wherever it appeared in the original judgment. Uchena JA confirmed agreement with the content and conclusion of the judgment prepared by Bhunu JA.

Courts have the inherent power to correct clerical or administrative errors in their judgments to ensure the accurate record of proceedings, including the correct identification of judges who constituted the panel that heard a matter. Such corrections do not alter the substance of the judgment but merely rectify factual inaccuracies regarding the court's composition.

The judgment provides insight into the administrative practice of judges exchanging files and sitting in each other's stead on different dates, and the potential for administrative confusion this may cause if not properly documented. The court's transparency in acknowledging and correcting such errors reinforces public confidence in the accuracy of court records.

This corrigendum demonstrates the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe's procedural mechanism for correcting administrative and clerical errors in judgments. It illustrates the court's commitment to ensuring accurate records of judicial proceedings and the proper composition of judicial panels. While this is a Zimbabwean case and not directly binding in South African law, it reflects common law principles regarding the correction of judgments that may be of comparative interest in South African jurisprudence.