Abdullah and Another v Minister of Higher Education and Training and Others (CA270/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 16 (31 March 2016)

Abdullah and Another v Minister of Higher Education and Training and Others (CA270/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 16 (31 March 2016)

The court found that the court a quo erred in treating the application as a joint one and in concluding that all applicants were equally successful. In fact, the appellants were wholly successful in the relief they sought, while Mbana was not. The general rule that costs follow the result should have been applied in respect of the appellants. The discretion exercised by the court a quo was based on a factual misconception, justifying appellate intervention. The appeal was upheld and the costs order amended to reflect that the appellants are entitled to their costs, including costs of two counsel, while Mbana must pay his own costs.

Citation
[2016] ZAECGHC 16
Parties
Appellant: Ridwaan Moegamat Abdullah; Appellant: Frederick Paul Dennis; Respondent: Minister of Higher Education and Training; Respondent: Director-General of the Department of Higher Education and Training; Respondent: Director: Labour Relations, Department of Higher Education and Training; Respondent: Chief Director: Financial Planning and Co-operation, Department of Higher Education and Training
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2016
Case Number
CA270/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
N G Beshe, GG Goosen, NC Msizi
Legal Topics
Review of Administrative Action, Costs Award, Fair Administrative Action, Pa Justice Act
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Review of Administrative Action Costs Award Fair Administrative Action Pa Justice Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ridwaan Moegamat Abdullah

Appellant

Frederick Paul Dennis

Appellant

Minister of Higher Education and Training

Respondent

Director-General of the Department of Higher Education and Training

Respondent

Director: Labour Relations, Department of Higher Education and Training

Respondent

Chief Director: Financial Planning and Co-operation, Department of Higher Education and Training

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo erred in ordering that each party pay its own costs.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were wholly successful in their relief and thus entitled to costs.
  3. 3 Whether the general rule that costs follow the result should have been applied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the court a quo erred in treating the application as a joint one and in concluding that all applicants were equally successful. In fact, the appellants were wholly successful in the relief they sought, while Mbana was not. The general rule that costs follow the result should have been applied in respect of the appellants. The discretion exercised by the court a quo was based on a factual misconception, justifying appellate intervention. The appeal was upheld and the costs order amended to reflect that the appellants are entitled to their costs, including costs of two counsel, while Mbana must pay his own costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Paragraph 69.4 of the judgment of the court a quo is deleted and substituted with: The first to fourth respondents are to pay the second and third applicants' costs in respect of the urgent application for interim relief and the main application; jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved,...
  • The first applicant is to pay his own costs.