A.S v A.S (2625/2019) [2024] ZAECQBHC 84 (14 November 2024)

A.S v A.S (2625/2019) [2024] ZAECQBHC 84 (14 November 2024)

The court found that although the plaintiff was a defendant in reconvention and thus eligible to rely on Rule 34, the tender made did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 34(5), particularly as payment was conditional upon the sale of the property—a condition not ordered by the court. The tender was made only three days before trial, not affording the respondent the required fifteen days to consider it. The court held that the cost order previously made was appropriate, as the tender's conditions were not met in the judgment and the procedural requirements of Rule 34 were not satisfied. Consequently, there was no basis to vary the costs order.

Citation
[2024] ZAECQBHC 84
Parties
Applicant: A[...] S[...]; Respondent: A[...] S[...]
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2024
Case Number
2625/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Reconsideration of Costs Order Under Rule 34(12)
Outcome
Application for reconsideration of costs order dismissed with costs.
Judges
M Makaula
Legal Topics
Costs Order Reconsideration, Rule 34 Uniform Rules, Joint Ownership, Settlement Offer
Civil Procedure Land and Property Costs Order Reconsideration Rule 34 Uniform Rules Joint Ownership Settlement Offer

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

Parties

A[...] S[...]

Applicant

A[...] S[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Reconsideration of Costs Order Under Rule 34(12)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should reconsider the costs order previously made in terms of Rule 34(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's tender complied with the requirements of Rule 34 and justified a variation of the costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the rejection of the plaintiff's tender by the defendant was reasonable under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the plaintiff was a defendant in reconvention and thus eligible to rely on Rule 34, the tender made did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 34(5), particularly as payment was conditional upon the sale of the property—a condition not ordered by the court. The tender was made only three days before trial, not affording the respondent the required fifteen days to consider it. The court held that the cost order previously made was appropriate, as the tender's conditions were not met in the judgment and the procedural requirements of Rule 34 were not satisfied. Consequently, there was no basis to vary the costs order.

Court Disposition

Application for reconsideration of costs order dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.