Judgment No. SC 10/18 Criminal Appeal SC 185/14 It seems to me that r 449 is meant for the correction of orders erroneously sought or erroneously granted and not orders that are erroneous in substance. In the South African case of DA Weelson v Waterlinx Pool and Spa (Pty) Ltd (13904/2007) [2013] ZAPGJHC 47 (1 March 2013), the court was dealing with r 42 (1) (a) whose provisions are similar to those of our r 449. At para [5] the court stated: “Rule 42 (1) provides that a court may of its own accord or upon application of any party affected by the order grant a rescission of the order or vary the order or judgment which has been erroneously sought or erroneously granted in the absence of any party affected thereby. The rule was introduced to cater for errors in judgment which are obviously wrong and are procedurally based.” (my emphasis) The order that was granted in HC4641/13 was not sought erroneously and was not granted erroneously, in the absence of the respondent. The respondent chose not to oppose the application preferring to complain to the appellant that the application was prematurely filed. The question whether a judge can alter the decision of another judge has been discussed in a number of cases. In Pyramid Motor Corporation (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbabwe Banking Corporation 1984 (2) ZLR 29, the court had this to say: “When Goldin J decided that case he was a judge of the High Court. As a judge of parallel jurisdiction, I think I can only refuse to follow his decision. To make a declaration that he wrongly decided the Rhostar case would I think, be treading on the prerogative of the Supreme Court.” On the facts of this case the court a quo in HC154/14 altered the decision of the court in HC4641/13 in circumstances where r 449 was inapplicable. The learned judge a quo stated at p 7 of the judgment: “It is common cause that the arbitral award did not provide for payment of interest. Therefore, the High Court order of 10 July 2013, which provided for payment of interest from 31 December 2008, was erroneously sought, and erroneously granted. There was no legal basis for acceding to that application for interest, in an application for 5