The proceedings were brought before the court sitting as a commissioner of patents. The Applicants launched anapplication against the Respondents in which they sought an interdict under the patent. While the interdict waspending the applicants launched the present application, purportedly in terms of section 51(9) of the Patents Act 57of 1978 (the Act). The application for the interdict was heard and dismissed by the commissioner of patents on 18October 1995. The Respondents maintained that the application for amendment under section 51(9) of the Act wasprocedurally defective in that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain such application in terms of thissubsection. It was further submitted by the Respondent that this section applied only where proceedings werepending before a "court" as defined in section 2 of the Act. The Court examined the provisions of the Act dealingwith the jurisdiction of the commissioner of patents and the distinction between the commissioner and the "court".Held ­ In terms of section 76(1) and (2) of the Act, which deals with appeals from the commissioner, it is clear that"court" is used in its defined (narrow) sense. The commissioner sits as a court and is in fact a court. In the contextof section 51(9)Page 395 of [1997] 4 All SA 394 (T)the words " any Court" should be read in a wider sense than the definition in section 2 of the Act, so as to include"court of the commissioner of patents".It is sound principle as set out in section 51(9) that the tribunal hearing the patent amendment matter shouldalso deal with the application for amendment. This applies equally to hearings before the commissioner of patents.The Respondent's argument in limine regarding the jurisdiction of the commissioner failed.