du Plessis v MEC for the Department of Public Works, Raods and Transport (1001/2010) [2020] ZANWHC 77 (2 July 2020)

du Plessis v MEC for the Department of Public Works, Raods and Transport (1001/2010) [2020] ZANWHC 77 (2 July 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the costs order. The awarding of costs is a matter of judicial discretion, and the court had considered all relevant facts and circumstances, concluding that it was fair, just, and equitable for each party to pay its own costs. The threshold for granting leave to appeal is now more stringent, requiring a measure of certainty that another court would reach a different decision. The applicant did not meet this threshold, and no compelling reason was shown for the appeal to be heard. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2020] ZANWHC 77
Parties
Applicant: Ignatius Pieter du Plessis; Respondent: MEC for the Department of Public Works, Raods & Transport
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 July 2020
Case Number
1001/2010
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order Following Main Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
R D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Apportionment of Liability, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Delict Costs Award Apportionment of Liability Leave to Appeal Judicial Discretion

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ignatius Pieter du Plessis

Applicant

MEC for the Department of Public Works, Raods & Transport

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order Following Main Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs as the substantially successful party in a delictual claim.
  2. 2 Whether the court exercised its discretion judicially in refusing to award costs to the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the costs order. The awarding of costs is a matter of judicial discretion, and the court had considered all relevant facts and circumstances, concluding that it was fair, just, and equitable for each party to pay its own costs. The threshold for granting leave to appeal is now more stringent, requiring a measure of certainty that another court would reach a different decision. The applicant did not meet this threshold, and no compelling reason was shown for the appeal to be heard. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal to the Full Court of this Division, alternatively to the Supreme Court of Appeal, is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal.