Anastasiou and Another v Jordaan (18524/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 288 (31 October 2016)

Anastasiou and Another v Jordaan (18524/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 288 (31 October 2016)

The court found that the cost order was erroneously sought and granted in the absence of the applicants, as the eviction application was premature and the applicants had already agreed to vacate the premises by the required date. The requirements of Uniform Rule 42(1) were met: the order was erroneously granted,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 288
Parties
Applicant: Taso Anastasiou; Applicant: Monique Anastasiou; Respondent: Katie K.P. Jordaan
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2016
Case Number
18524/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Cost Order Granted in Absence of Applicants
Outcome
Application for rescission granted; cost order and writ of execution set aside; respondent ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
C J Collis
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Uniform Rule 42, Costs Orders, Condonation, Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Uniform Rule 42 Costs Orders Condonation Default Judgment

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taso Anastasiou

Applicant

Monique Anastasiou

Applicant

Katie K.P. Jordaan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Cost Order Granted in Absence of Applicants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cost order granted against the applicants on 26 May 2015 was erroneously sought or granted.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of Uniform Rule 42(1) for rescission have been met.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late launching of the application should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the cost order was erroneously sought and granted in the absence of the applicants, as the eviction application was premature and the applicants had already agreed to vacate the premises by the required date. The requirements of Uniform Rule 42(1) were met: the order was erroneously granted, made in the absence of the applicants, and affected their rights due to subsequent execution proceedings. The court held that it was unnecessary to consider common law rescission requirements. The respondent's conduct in persisting with the cost order despite knowing the applicants had vacated justified a punitive costs order. Accordingly, the cost order and writ of execution were...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission granted; cost order and writ of execution set aside; respondent ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The cost order granted against the First and Second Applicants on 26 May 2015 is rescinded.
  • The writ of execution issued consequent to the cost order granted on 26 May 2015 is set aside.