Cipla Vet (Pty) Ltd v Merial and Others (1068/2020) [2022] ZASCA 5 (11 January 2022)

Cipla Vet (Pty) Ltd v Merial and Others (1068/2020) [2022] ZASCA 5 (11 January 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the full court was correct in clarifying Murphy J's order to include the costs of two counsel and the qualifying fees of expert witnesses in the wasted costs order. The court found that paragraph 96 of Murphy J's judgment, which referenced the complexity of the matter and the parties' agreement regarding expert fees, must be read in conjunction with the costs order. The omission of express reference to these costs in paragraph (ii) of the order did not preclude their inclusion, given the context and the agreement between the parties. The court further held that the delay in bringing the application for clarification was not unreasonable and did not...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 5
Parties
Appellant: Cipla Vet (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Merial; Respondent: Merial Ltd; Respondent: Merial South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 January 2022
Case Number
1068/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, Against a Full Court Order Clarifying a Costs Order.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. The order of the full court clarifying the costs order is confirmed.
Judges
Mocumie, Molemela, Mokgohloa, Kgoele, Phatshoane
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Court Orders, Costs Orders, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Wasted Costs, Expert Witness Fees
Civil Procedure Interpretation of Court Orders Costs Orders Rule 42 Uniform Rules Wasted Costs Expert Witness Fees

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cipla Vet (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Merial

Respondent

Merial Ltd

Respondent

Merial South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, Against a Full Court Order Clarifying a Costs Order.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wasted costs order granted by Murphy J included the costs of two counsel and the qualifying fees of expert witnesses.
  2. 2 Whether the full court was correct in clarifying Murphy J's order to include such costs.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application for clarification affected the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the full court was correct in clarifying Murphy J's order to include the costs of two counsel and the qualifying fees of expert witnesses in the wasted costs order. The court found that paragraph 96 of Murphy J's judgment, which referenced the complexity of the matter and the parties' agreement regarding expert fees, must be read in conjunction with the costs order. The omission of express reference to these costs in paragraph (ii) of the order did not preclude their inclusion, given the context and the agreement between the parties. The court further held that the delay in bringing the application for clarification was not unreasonable and did not...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. The order of the full court clarifying the costs order is confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order of the full court clarifying that the wasted costs shall include the costs of two counsel and the qualifying fees of expert witnesses is confirmed.