Body Corporate of Merriman Court and Others v Greeff - Reasons for Rule 42(1) (A212/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 46 (19 February 2024)
The Full Bench found that the original judgment delivered on 13 February 2024 omitted a clear order regarding the costs of the appeal. Given the appellants' success, the principle that costs follow the result applies. The omission was rectified under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules, and the order was varied to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAWCHC 46
- Parties
- Appellant: Body Corporate of Merriman Court; Appellant: Claire Elizabeth Blaha; Appellant: Charles Eric Leong Son; Appellant: Wendy-Lee de Goede; Appellant: Istvan Gyongy; Respondent: Johannes Wessel Greeff
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- A212/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal; Reasons for Rule 42(1) Order
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; orders of the court a quo set aside; respondent's application dismissed with costs; respondent to bear costs of the appeal.
- Judges
- R. Allie, G. Salie, N. Mangcu-Lockwood
- Legal Topics
- Variation of Order, Costs on Appeal, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Setting Aside Orders
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Body Corporate of Merriman Court
Appellant
Claire Elizabeth Blaha
Appellant
Charles Eric Leong Son
Appellant
Wendy-Lee de Goede
Appellant
Istvan Gyongy
Appellant
Johannes Wessel Greeff
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal; Reasons for Rule 42(1) Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the costs of the appeal were properly addressed in the original judgment.
- 2 Whether the order should be varied under Rule 42(1)(b) to clarify liability for appeal costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The Full Bench found that the original judgment delivered on 13 February 2024 omitted a clear order regarding the costs of the appeal. Given the appellants' success, the principle that costs follow the result applies. The omission was rectified under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules, and the order was varied to specify that the respondent shall bear the costs of the appeal. The orders of the court a quo were set aside, and the respondent's application was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; orders of the court a quo set aside; respondent's application dismissed with costs; respondent to bear costs of the appeal.
Orders
- The appeal is upheld.
- The orders of the court a quo dated 15 September 2021 and 16 March 2022 are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
[WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN]
REPORTABLE
CASE NO: A212/2022
Before ALLIE, J et SALIE, J et MANGCU-LOCKWOOD, J
Hearing: 17 July 2023; 1 February 2024
Reasons for Rule 42(1) Order: 19 February 2024
In the matter between: THE BODY CORPORATE OF MERRIMAN COURT 1st Appellant CLAIRE ELIZABETH BLAHA 2nd Appellant CHARLES ERIC LEONG SON 3rd Appellant WENDY-LEE DE GOEDE 4th Appellant ISTVAN GYONGY 5th Appellant And JOHANNES WESSEL GREEFF Respondent
REASONS FOR RULE 42(1) ORDER ELECTRONICALLY
DELIVERED ON 19 FEBRUARY 2024
ALLIE, J:
1. In this Full Bench Appeal, counsel for the Appellants in the penultimate paragraph of his Heads of Argument sought the setting aside of the orders of the court a quo and the dismissal of the application before the court a quo with costs.
2. Clearly, no order concerning the costs of the appeal were made.
3. In light of the Appellants having been successful and it having been upheld, I am of the view that the costs of the appeal ought to follow the result.
4. Therefore, in terms of Rule 42(1) (b) of the Uniform Rules of this Court, I am of the view that the order in the judgment delivered on 13 February 2024, ought to be varied as follows in order to make clear our decision concerning the costs of the appeal.
5. By adding in paragraph 4 of the order which reads as follows:
“4. The respondent shall bear the costs of the appeal.”
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Therefore the new order of the judgment that was given on 13 February 2024 reads as follows:
1. The appeal is upheld;
2. The orders of the court a quo dated 15 September 2021 and 16 March 2022 are set aside; and
3. The respondent’s application is dismissed with costs.
4. The respondent shall bear the costs of the appeal.”
JUDGE R. ALLIE
SALIE, J:
I agree.
JUDGE G. SALIE
MANGCU-LOCKWOOD, J:
JUDGE N. MANGCU-LOCKWOOD
Reasons for Rule 42(1) Judgment Delivered: 19 February 2024
For the Appellant Adv PA Corbett SC Instructed by Van Rensburg & Co (Ref: Leon van Rensburg) For Respondent Adv Adv RG Patrick Instructed by Maurice Phillips Wisenberg (Ref: Hein Lombaard)
Date(s) of Hearing: 17 July 2023; 1 February 2024
Judgment delivered on:19 February 2024