Adlem and Another v Arlow (782/11) [2013] ZASCA 7 (14 March 2013)

Adlem and Another v Arlow (782/11) [2013] ZASCA 7 (14 March 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that the effect of its previous order was limited to the costs occasioned by the argument before the high court and did not extend to the costs of the proceedings as a whole. The appellants' argument prevailed, and the usual order regarding costs should follow. The court declined to revisit the costs order for the appeal, as it was made by agreement and was correct. The ramifications of the order on the claim and counterclaims are uncertain and should be decided by the high court if necessary.

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 7
Parties
Appellant: Eugene Adlem; Appellant: Joseph Adlem; Respondent: Nestor Algemus Arlow
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2013
Case Number
782/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North West High Court, Mafikeng
Outcome
Appeal regarding variation of provisional costs order refused; costs occasioned by the argument to vary the order awarded to the appellants.
Judges
Cloete, Cachalia, Shongwe, Theron, Erasmus
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Variation of Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Orders Variation of Orders

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene Adlem

Appellant

Joseph Adlem

Appellant

Nestor Algemus Arlow

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North West High Court, Mafikeng

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provisional costs order made by the high court should be varied.
  2. 2 Whether the costs occasioned by the argument to vary the order should be awarded to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that the effect of its previous order was limited to the costs occasioned by the argument before the high court and did not extend to the costs of the proceedings as a whole. The appellants' argument prevailed, and the usual order regarding costs should follow. The court declined to revisit the costs order for the appeal, as it was made by agreement and was correct. The ramifications of the order on the claim and counterclaims are uncertain and should be decided by the high court if necessary.

Court Disposition

Appeal regarding variation of provisional costs order refused; costs occasioned by the argument to vary the order awarded to the appellants.

Orders

  • Para 2(b) of the previous order regarding costs in the high court is confirmed.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the appellants' costs occasioned by the argument to vary the order.