DHR Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Gomes and Others (1227/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 49 (20 May 2024)

DHR Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Gomes and Others (1227/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 49 (20 May 2024)

The court found that the applicant's conduct in pursuing the urgent application, despite knowing it would not succeed on the merits, amounted to an abuse of court process. The late withdrawal and conflicting cost tenders placed the respondents at risk of unrecoverable expenses. The party and party scale would not fully indemnify the respondents, and the applicant's actions justified a punitive costs order. The court exercised its discretion to award costs on the attorney and client scale up to 26 February 2024, including costs for the hearing on 21 February 2024, to ensure the respondents are not out of pocket due to the applicant's conduct. The order includes costs for employment of two...

Citation
[2024] ZALMPPHC 49
Parties
Applicant: DHR Consulting (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bonita Rodrigues Gomes; Respondent: Erasmus Group Holdings(Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Paledi Super Spar & Tops; Respondent: Thornhill Super Spar & Tops; Respondent: Istores Messina (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Cross Spar & Tops; Respondent: Messina Super Spar Nasionale Weg; Respondent: Taximark (Pty) Ltd t/a Kathu Super Spar & Tops
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2024
Case Number
1227/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application withdrawn; costs awarded against the applicant on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Costs Awards, Attorney and Client Scale, Party and Party Scale, Withdrawal of Application, Taxation of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Awards Attorney and Client Scale Party and Party Scale Withdrawal of Application Taxation of 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DHR Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Bonita Rodrigues Gomes

Respondent

Erasmus Group Holdings(Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Paledi Super Spar & Tops

Respondent

Thornhill Super Spar & Tops

Respondent

Istores Messina (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Cross Spar & Tops

Respondent

Messina Super Spar Nasionale Weg

Respondent

Taximark (Pty) Ltd t/a Kathu Super Spar & Tops

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on party and party scale or attorney and client scale.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's conduct justifies a punitive costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents should recover costs beyond the date of withdrawal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's conduct in pursuing the urgent application, despite knowing it would not succeed on the merits, amounted to an abuse of court process. The late withdrawal and conflicting cost tenders placed the respondents at risk of unrecoverable expenses. The party and party scale would not fully indemnify the respondents, and the applicant's actions justified a punitive costs order. The court exercised its discretion to award costs on the attorney and client scale up to 26 February 2024, including costs for the hearing on 21 February 2024, to ensure the respondents are not out of pocket due to the applicant's conduct. The order includes costs for employment of two...

Court Disposition

Application withdrawn; costs awarded against the applicant on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs on attorney and client scale up to 26 February 2024, including the costs of 21 February 2024.
  • The costs will include the costs of employment of two counsels, where employed.