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)
- Citation
- [2016] ZAFSHC 92
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- A. Kruger
- Case number
- 4464/2015, 203/2016, 1814/2015
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- A. Kruger
- Case number
- 4464/2015, 203/2016, 1814/2015
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
Chuang Yi Trading (Edms) Bpk
Applicant Counsel: Adv L le R Pohl SCGallery on Leviseur (Edms) BK
Applicant Counsel: Adv L le R Pohl SCMtutuzeli Sidney Mdi
Applicant Counsel: Adv L le R Pohl SCVrystaat Dobbel en Drankowerheid
Respondent Counsel: Adv ABG ChoudreeDie Voorsitter van die Vrystaat Dobbel en Drankowerheid
Respondent Counsel: Adv ABG ChoudreeFree State Gambling & Liquor Authority
Respondent Counsel: Adv ABG ChoudreeThe Chairperson of the Free State Gambling & Liquor Authority
Respondent Counsel: Adv ABG Choudree03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application / Costs Order Following Explanation by Respondent
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether an order de bonis propriis should be made against the members of the Free State Gambling and Liquor Board.
- 02
Whether the conduct of the Board, Secretariat, and Legal Department was mala fide.
- 03
Who should bear the costs of the applications.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought an order de bonis propriis against the Board members, alleging that their conduct warranted personal liability for costs due to defiance of the court and misconceived statutory duties.
- Respondent
- The second respondent, Chairperson of the Board, submitted a detailed affidavit explaining that the administration staff misunderstood their statutory duties and failed to communicate this to the Board. He asserted that the Board did not intend to act in defiance of the court and that their conduct was not mala fide.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General South African costs jurisprudence
A costs order de bonis propriis is justified only where conduct is mala fide, negligent, or in defiance of the court.
- 02
Affidavit of the Chairperson; accepted by the court
The explanation of misunderstanding statutory duties, absent mala fides, may mitigate against personal costs orders.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted the importance of proper communication between administration staff and Board members regarding statutory duties.
- The court emphasized that costs orders de bonis propriis should not be made lightly and require clear evidence of mala fides or defiance.
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.
- In all three cases the first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the applications on the scale as between attorney and client.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Order
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
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.