Chuang Yi Trading (Edms) Bpk v Vrystaat Dobbel en Drankowerheid and Another; Gallery on Leviseur (Edms) Bk v Vrystaat Dobbel en Drankowerheid and Another; Mdi v Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority and Another (4464/2015, 203/2016, 1814/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 92 (5 May 2016)
The court accepted the explanation provided by the Chairperson of the Board that the administration staff misconceived their statutory duties and did not communicate this to the Board members. The Board did not intend to act in defiance of the court, and their conduct was not mala fide. Consequently, the court found...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZAFSHC 92
- Parties
- Applicant: Chuang Yi Trading (Edms) Bpk; Applicant: Gallery on Leviseur (Edms) BK; Applicant: Mtutuzeli Sidney Mdi; Respondent: Vrystaat Dobbel en Drankowerheid; Respondent: Die Voorsitter van die Vrystaat Dobbel en Drankowerheid; Respondent: Free State Gambling & Liquor Authority; Respondent: The Chairperson of the Free State Gambling & Liquor Authority
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 4464/2015, 203/2016, 1814/2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Costs Order Following Explanation by Respondent
- Outcome
- Costs order granted against the first respondent on the attorney and client scale in all three cases; no order de bonis propriis made against Board members.
- Judges
- A. Kruger
- Legal Topics
- Costs Order, Attorney and Client Scale, De Bonis Propriis, Statutory Duties, Affidavit Evidence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Chuang Yi Trading (Edms) Bpk
Applicant
Gallery on Leviseur (Edms) BK
Applicant
Mtutuzeli Sidney Mdi
Applicant
Vrystaat Dobbel en Drankowerheid
Respondent
Die Voorsitter van die Vrystaat Dobbel en Drankowerheid
Respondent
Free State Gambling & Liquor Authority
Respondent
The Chairperson of the Free State Gambling & Liquor Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Order Following Explanation by Respondent
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order de bonis propriis should be made against the members of the Free State Gambling and Liquor Board.
- 2 Whether the conduct of the Board, Secretariat, and Legal Department was mala fide.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the applications.
Ratio Decidendi
The court accepted the explanation provided by the Chairperson of the Board that the administration staff misconceived their statutory duties and did not communicate this to the Board members. The Board did not intend to act in defiance of the court, and their conduct was not mala fide. Consequently, the court found no basis for an order de bonis propriis against the Board members. However, the first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the applications on the attorney and client scale in all three cases.
Court Disposition
Costs order granted against the first respondent on the attorney and client scale in all three cases; no order de bonis propriis made against Board members.
Orders
- In all three cases the first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the applications on the scale as between attorney and client.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRI CA
Case No. : 4464/2015
In the matters between:-
CHUANG YI TRADING (EDMS) BPK
Applicant
and
VRYSTAAT DOBBEL EN DRANKOWERHEID 1st Respondent
DIE VOORSITTER VAN DIE VRYSTAAT
DOBBEL EN DRANKOWERHEID 2nd Respondent
Case No. : 203/2016
GALLERY ON LEVISEUR CEDMS) BK Applicant
VRYST AAT DOBBEL EN DRANKOWERHEID 1st Respondent
DIE VOORSI TTER VAN DIE VRYSTAAT
DOBBEL EN DRANKOWERHEID 2nd Respondent
Case No. : 1814/2015
MTUTUZELI SIDNEY MDI Applicant
FREE STATE GAMBLING & LIQUOR AUTHORITY 1st Respondent
THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE FREE STATE
GAMBLING & LIQUOR AUTHORITY 2nd Respondent
ORDER:
COSTS
JUDGMENT BY KRUGER, J
DELIVERED ON: 5 MAY 2016
[1] In the judgment of 21 April 2016 the members of the Free State Gambling and Liquor Board were granted leave to place evidence under oath before the court why an order de bonis propriis should not be made against them. A detailed affidavit by second respondent, the Chairperson of the Board, has now been placed before me. In that affidavit the second respondent explains that the administration staff misconceived their statutory duties and did not convey their lack of understanding to the members of the Board. He explains that the Board did not intend to act in defiance of the court. He is at pains to explain that the conduct of the Board Members, Secretariat and Legal Department was not ma/a tides.
[2] I accept the explanation by the second respondent given on behalf of the Board.
ORDER
In all three cases the first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the applications on the scale as between attorney and client.
___________________
A. KRUGER, J
On behalf of Applicants: Adv L le R Pohl SC
Instructed by:
Honey Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of
1st & 2nd Respondents: Adv ABG Choudree
Matsepes Inc.
/wm