Bridging Provident Fund v Dyrex (Pty) Ltd and Others (3641/2018) [2019] ZAMPMHC 30 (7 August 2019)

Bridging Provident Fund v Dyrex (Pty) Ltd and Others (3641/2018) [2019] ZAMPMHC 30 (7 August 2019)

The Respondents failed to comply with the Uniform Rules by not filing a proper condonation application, breaching both the court order and procedural requirements. Their explanations for delay were contradictory and unsatisfactory, indicating a lack of candour and causing unnecessary costs and delays for the Applicant. The court found that the Respondents' conduct warranted a punitive costs order on an attorney-client scale for the period between 30 October 2018 and 31 January 2019. However, for the period after 31 January 2019, the Applicant did not promptly verify the outstanding amount, and the Respondents were entitled to dispute the remaining liability. Therefore, each party should...

Citation
[2019] ZAMPMHC 30
Parties
Applicant: Bridging Provident Fund; Respondent: Dyrex (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Nomvuyo Ketiso; Respondent: National Union of Mine Workers
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2019
Case Number
3641/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Main Dispute
Outcome
Costs awarded to the Applicant on an attorney-client scale for the period 30 October 2018 to 31 January 2019; each party to pay its own costs for the period 1 February to 1 August 2019.
Judges
B A Mashile
Legal Topics
Condonation Application, Attorney Client Costs, Case Management, Postponement of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Condonation Application Attorney Client Costs Case Management Postponement of Proceedings

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bridging Provident Fund

Applicant

Dyrex (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Nomvuyo Ketiso

Respondent

National Union of Mine Workers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Main Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should be liable for the costs incurred between 30 October 2018 and 1 August 2019.
  2. 2 At what scale should such costs be assessed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents failed to comply with the Uniform Rules by not filing a proper condonation application, breaching both the court order and procedural requirements. Their explanations for delay were contradictory and unsatisfactory, indicating a lack of candour and causing unnecessary costs and delays for the Applicant. The court found that the Respondents' conduct warranted a punitive costs order on an attorney-client scale for the period between 30 October 2018 and 31 January 2019. However, for the period after 31 January 2019, the Applicant did not promptly verify the outstanding amount, and the Respondents were entitled to dispute the remaining liability. Therefore, each party should...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the Applicant on an attorney-client scale for the period 30 October 2018 to 31 January 2019; each party to pay its own costs for the period 1 February to 1 August 2019.

Orders

  • The Respondents are ordered to pay to the Applicant, at an attorney-client scale, the costs incurred between 30 October 2018 and 31 January 2019.
  • Each party shall pay its own costs for the period between 1 February and 1 August 2019.