Botha and Others v Scholtz and Another; In re: Botha and Others v Member of the executive Council: Local Government and Housing Free State Province and Others (3424/2016, R182/2007) [2017] ZAFSHC 51 (9 March 2017)

Botha and Others v Scholtz and Another; In re: Botha and Others v Member of the executive Council: Local Government and Housing Free State Province and Others (3424/2016, R182/2007) [2017] ZAFSHC 51 (9 March 2017)

The court held that the rule of superannuation, which previously required revival of judgment after a certain period, has been abolished by the amendment to Uniform Rule 66. The Prescription Act now governs the period within which a judgment debt, including costs orders, prescribes, which is thirty years. The right to quantify and recover costs by presenting a bill for taxation persists as long as the judgment has not prescribed. The applicants' contention that the costs order had superannuated or prescribed is unfounded under current law. The first respondent's right to quantify and recover costs pursuant to the court order in case R182/2007 was not superannuated or prescribed.

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 51
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Francois Botha; Applicant: Jan Johannes Lubbe; Applicant: Adriana Catharina Pauw; Applicant: Andrew George Murray; Applicant: Henning Stabelberg; Applicant: Anna Jacoba Cecilia Bobbert; Applicant: Annalien Diedericks; Applicant: Bart Johannes Stephanus Diedericks; Applicant: Marrigje Mariana Koorts; Applicant: Rulhof (Fief) van der Merwe; Applicant: Mattheus Gerhardus Lotter; Applicant: Izak Johannes Janse van Vuuren; Applicant: Michael Nicolus Georgiou N.O.; Applicant: Joseph Reynolds Chemally N.O.; Applicant: Stamatios Tsangarakis N.O.; Respondent: Andrew George Scholtz; Respondent: Taxing Matter, Free State Division of the High Court of South Africa, Bloemfontein
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2017
Case Number
3424/2016, R182/2007
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
P.E. Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Prescription of Judgment Debt, Superannuation of Costs Order, Uniform Rules of Court, Taxation of Costs
Civil Procedure Prescription of Judgment Debt Superannuation of Costs Order Uniform Rules of Court Taxation of Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Francois Botha

Applicant

Jan Johannes Lubbe

Applicant

Adriana Catharina Pauw

Applicant

Andrew George Murray

Applicant

Henning Stabelberg

Applicant

Anna Jacoba Cecilia Bobbert

Applicant

Annalien Diedericks

Applicant

Bart Johannes Stephanus Diedericks

Applicant

Marrigje Mariana Koorts

Applicant

Rulhof (Fief) van der Merwe

Applicant

Mattheus Gerhardus Lotter

Applicant

Izak Johannes Janse van Vuuren

Applicant

Michael Nicolus Georgiou N.O.

Applicant

Joseph Reynolds Chemally N.O.

Applicant

Stamatios Tsangarakis N.O.

Applicant

Andrew George Scholtz

Respondent

Taxing Matter, Free State Division of the High Court of South Africa, Bloemfontein

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's right to quantify and recover costs pursuant to the cost order in case R182/2007 has superannuated or prescribed.
  2. 2 Whether the presentation of a bill of costs for taxation more than six years after the order was granted is permissible under current law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the rule of superannuation, which previously required revival of judgment after a certain period, has been abolished by the amendment to Uniform Rule 66. The Prescription Act now governs the period within which a judgment debt, including costs orders, prescribes, which is thirty years. The right to quantify and recover costs by presenting a bill for taxation persists as long as the judgment has not prescribed. The applicants' contention that the costs order had superannuated or prescribed is unfounded under current law. The first respondent's right to quantify and recover costs pursuant to the court order in case R182/2007 was not superannuated or prescribed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.