Cornelius Jahannes De Bruyn N.O and Another v Koot Oosthuizen Attorneys and Another (3668/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 148 (19 May 2022)

Cornelius Jahannes De Bruyn N.O and Another v Koot Oosthuizen Attorneys and Another (3668/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 148 (19 May 2022)

The court considered the written heads of argument and the grounds for appeal advanced by the applicants. It found that, in respect of the costs order, another court may come to a different conclusion. The applicants demonstrated that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as required by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The court therefore granted leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Division, with costs to be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 148
Parties
Applicant: Cornelius Jahannes De Bruyn N.O; Applicant: Cornelius Johannes De Bruyn N.O; Respondent: Koot Oosthuizen Attorneys; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Bloemfontein
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 May 2022
Case Number
3668/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of the Free State Division. Costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Prospects of Success, Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Order Prospects of Success Superior Courts Act

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornelius Jahannes De Bruyn N.O

Applicant

Cornelius Johannes De Bruyn N.O

Applicant

Koot Oosthuizen Attorneys

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Bloemfontein

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the costs order.
  2. 2 Whether the court exercised its discretion judicially in awarding each party to pay their own costs.
  3. 3 Whether another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court considered the written heads of argument and the grounds for appeal advanced by the applicants. It found that, in respect of the costs order, another court may come to a different conclusion. The applicants demonstrated that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as required by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The court therefore granted leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Division, with costs to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of the Free State Division. Costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of this Division.
  • Costs to be costs in the appeal.