Draht NO and Others v Manqele and Others (18771/13) [2016] ZAGPPHC 358 (18 May 2016)

Draht NO and Others v Manqele and Others (18771/13) [2016] ZAGPPHC 358 (18 May 2016)

The court found that a clear typographical error had occurred in the costs order, with the order reflecting attorney and client costs instead of party and party costs as intended. The court exercised its power under Rule 42(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court to correct the order, ensuring consistency with the judgment's substance. Regarding the argument based on the Consumer Protection Act, the court held that this issue was not raised or canvassed during the main proceedings and did not form part of the judgment. Consequently, the applicants could not seek leave to appeal on a ground that was not considered or recorded in the judgment. The application for leave to appeal on the CPA aspect...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 358
Parties
Applicant: Heiko Draht N.O.; Applicant: Marc Bradley BeginSel N.O.; Applicant: Donovan Theodore Majiedt N.O.; Applicant: Dynamic Auctioneers CC; Respondent: Mbongiseni Isaac Manqele; Respondent: Lindiwe Grace Manqele; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2016
Case Number
18771/13
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment; Clarification and Correction of Costs Order; Consideration of New Argument on Cpa.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal on the CPA aspect dismissed with costs; costs order corrected to party and party scale.
Judges
HUGHES
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Uniform Rules of Court, Consumer Protection Act
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Order Uniform Rules of Court Consumer Protection 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heiko Draht N.O.

Applicant

Marc Bradley BeginSel N.O.

Applicant

Donovan Theodore Majiedt N.O.

Applicant

Dynamic Auctioneers CC

Applicant

Mbongiseni Isaac Manqele

Respondent

Lindiwe Grace Manqele

Respondent

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment; Clarification and Correction of Costs Order; Consideration of New Argument on Cpa.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order in paragraph 22.3 of the judgment should be corrected to reflect the party and party scale.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a clear typographical error had occurred in the costs order, with the order reflecting attorney and client costs instead of party and party costs as intended. The court exercised its power under Rule 42(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court to correct the order, ensuring consistency with the judgment's substance. Regarding the argument based on the Consumer Protection Act, the court held that this issue was not raised or canvassed during the main proceedings and did not form part of the judgment. Consequently, the applicants could not seek leave to appeal on a ground that was not considered or recorded in the judgment. The application for leave to appeal on the CPA aspect...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal on the CPA aspect dismissed with costs; costs order corrected to party and party scale.

Orders

  • The words 'as between attorney and client' in paragraph 22.3 of the judgment are deleted and replaced with 'on a party and party scale'.
  • The application for leave to appeal on the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 is dismissed with costs.