Du Toit v Du Plessis en Ander (364/2012) [2013] ZANCHC 10 (3 May 2013)

Du Toit v Du Plessis en Ander (364/2012) [2013] ZANCHC 10 (3 May 2013)

The court found that the respondents, having brought forward the hearing date and failed to provide the requested documents in terms of Rule 35(12) and 35(14), acted unreasonably by refusing the applicant's reasonable request for postponement. The urgency of the matter had diminished, and the respondents' conduct resulted in the matter not being ripe for hearing on 23 March 2012. The applicant was not at fault for the postponement, as he acted promptly in requesting discovery and seeking postponement. The respondents must bear the wasted costs of the day.

Citation
[2013] ZANCHC 10
Parties
Applicant: Jacob Casper Kruger Du Toit; Respondent: Deon Du Plessis; Respondent: Middelerf Plaas (Edms) Bpk
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2013
Case Number
364/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Postponement
Outcome
The respondents are ordered to pay the wasted costs of 23 March 2012.
Judges
C.C Williams
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Postponement of Proceedings, Rule 35 Discovery, Rule 6 Urgent Applications
Civil Procedure Costs Award Postponement of Proceedings Rule 35 Discovery Rule 6 Urgent Applications

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Casper Kruger Du Toit

Applicant

Deon Du Plessis

Respondent

Middelerf Plaas (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the wasted costs of the proceedings on 23 March 2012.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was responsible for the postponement due to lack of discovery.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents acted reasonably in refusing the applicant's request for postponement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents, having brought forward the hearing date and failed to provide the requested documents in terms of Rule 35(12) and 35(14), acted unreasonably by refusing the applicant's reasonable request for postponement. The urgency of the matter had diminished, and the respondents' conduct resulted in the matter not being ripe for hearing on 23 March 2012. The applicant was not at fault for the postponement, as he acted promptly in requesting discovery and seeking postponement. The respondents must bear the wasted costs of the day.

Court Disposition

The respondents are ordered to pay the wasted costs of 23 March 2012.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered to pay the wasted costs of 23 March 2012.