Page 88 of [1998] 3 All SA 77 (A)
therefore hold that the court a quo erred and that its interpretation of the section is incorrect. The adequacy of the
reasons provided to the registrar with applications for amendments in
View Parallel Citation
terms of section 51 is for the registrar to decide and no jurisdiction to review them after allowance is created by
section 51(10). If the registrar's acceptance of the reasons is to be attacked, such an attack would have to be
made by a commonlaw review and, if so attacked such attack could normally only be made within a reasonable
time (Stoner v SA Railways and Harbours 1933 TPD 265 at 272273; Wolgroeiers Afslaers (Edms) Pty v Munisipaliteit
van Kaapstad 1 9 7 8 ( 1 ) S A 1 3 ( A ) a t 3 8 H 3 9 D ; Setsokosane Busdiens (Edms) Bpk v Voorsitter, Nasionale
Vervoerkommissie en 'n ander 1986 (2) SA 57 (A)). To the extent to which the court's order set aside the first
amendment it must itself be set aside. Counsel did not seek an order for costs. The order I make is:
The appeal succeeds. The order of the court a quo setting aside the amendments to South African Letters Patent
77/1894 on the application made on 19 February 1982 is set aside and the registrar is ordered to restore to the
register the entry reflecting the amendment then made.
(Eksteen, Harms, Marais and Schutz JJA concurred in the judgment of Plewman JA.)
For the appellant:
CE Puckrin SC and JN Cullabine instructed by Spoor and Fisher, Pretoria
For the respondent:
Adams & Adams, Pretoria. Counsel's details unavailable.