Willem Jakobus Albertus Oosthuizen & another v The State

The appellants were convicted in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (functioning as Mpumalanga Division, Middelburg) of various offences. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, an order was made on 2 December 2019 setting aside the trial court's order and replacing it with substituted convictions and sentences. The first appellant (Oosthuizen) and second appellant (Jackson) were both found guilty of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm (count 5) and kidnapping (count 4). The second appellant was additionally found guilty of defeating the ends of justice (count 7). In the original appeal order, the sentences were antedated to 25 August 2017. However, this date was an error - the court had intended to antedate the sentences to 27 October 2017 in keeping with section 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.

• Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal had the power to correct a patent error in its own order regarding the antedating of sentences
• The correct date to which sentences should be antedated in terms of section 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

The Supreme Court of Appeal made an amended order correcting the patent error in its previous order. The amended order changed the antedating date of the sentences from 25 August 2017 to 27 October 2017. All other aspects of the order remained unchanged: (a) Both accused found guilty of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm (count 5) and kidnapping (count 4); (b) Accused 2 found guilty of defeating the ends of justice (count 7); (c) Each accused sentenced to five years imprisonment on count 5; (d) Each accused sentenced to one year imprisonment on count 4; (e) Accused 2 sentenced to one year imprisonment on count 7; (f) Sentence on count 4 to run concurrently with count 5; (g) Sentence on count 7 to run concurrently with count 5; (h) Sentences antedated to 27 October 2017.

A court has the power to correct a patent error in its own order where the correction is necessary to give effect to the true intention of the court. This applies to errors in antedating sentences, which must be corrected to comply with section 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The principle from Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd v Gentiruco AG 1977 (4) SA 298 (A) at 307D authorizes such corrections to ensure that the order reflects what the court actually intended to order.

The judgment does not contain substantive obiter dicta, as it is a brief procedural judgment focused solely on correcting the patent error in the antedating date. The matter was disposed of without oral hearing in terms of section 19(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, with no appearance by either the appellants or respondent, indicating that the correction was uncontroversial and purely technical in nature.

This case demonstrates the Supreme Court of Appeal's inherent power to correct patent errors in its own orders to give effect to the court's true intention. The case illustrates the application of the principle from Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd v Gentiruco AG regarding the correction of clerical or accidental errors in court orders. It also confirms the court's commitment to ensuring proper compliance with section 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 regarding the antedating of sentences. While this was a procedural correction rather than a substantive legal determination, it reinforces the importance of precision in court orders, particularly in criminal matters where liberty is at stake and accurate antedating affects the calculation of release dates.