De Villiers v De Villiers (E1223/04) [2006] ZAECHC 64 (16 November 2006)

De Villiers v De Villiers (E1223/04) [2006] ZAECHC 64 (16 November 2006)

The court held that it was functus officio regarding the costs order made by consent during the divorce proceedings. There was no legal basis to vary the order, as none of the exceptions allowing variation—such as fraud, new evidence, or statutory grounds—were present. The defendant's remedy lies with the taxing master, who may disallow costs for unnecessary duplication of attorneys, and any dissatisfaction with taxation may be addressed through review. The application for variation was dismissed as the court lacked jurisdiction to alter the original costs order.

Citation
[2006] ZAECHC 64
Parties
Applicant: Dean De Villiers; Respondent: Edna Pauline De Villiers
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 November 2006
Case Number
E1223/04
Procedural Posture
Motion Application / Application for Variation of Costs Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Jones
Legal Topics
Variation of Costs Order, Functus Officio, Review of Taxation, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Variation of Costs Order Functus Officio Review of Taxation Party and Party Costs

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dean De Villiers

Applicant

Edna Pauline De Villiers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion Application / Application for Variation of Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has the power to vary a costs order made by consent in a divorce action.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to a special costs order limiting the plaintiff to costs incurred in a less expensive forum.
  3. 3 Whether the taxing master may rule on the propriety of submitting two bills for taxation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it was functus officio regarding the costs order made by consent during the divorce proceedings. There was no legal basis to vary the order, as none of the exceptions allowing variation—such as fraud, new evidence, or statutory grounds—were present. The defendant's remedy lies with the taxing master, who may disallow costs for unnecessary duplication of attorneys, and any dissatisfaction with taxation may be addressed through review. The application for variation was dismissed as the court lacked jurisdiction to alter the original costs order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for variation of the costs order is dismissed with costs.