Eskom Holdings Beperk v Nigrini NO and Another (4338/2015) [2017] ZAFSHC 1 (5 January 2017)

Eskom Holdings Beperk v Nigrini NO and Another (4338/2015) [2017] ZAFSHC 1 (5 January 2017)

The court found that the respondents failed to provide a clear and satisfactory undertaking to retain the attached funds in trust pending the rescission application, and did not disclose that the funds had already been paid to the Trust and partially spent. Ms Martins' conduct, including her misleading undertakings and lack of timely communication, justified Eskom's decision to proceed with the urgent application. The respondents' opposition to the costs order was ill-founded, and their belated concession did not absolve them from liability. The court exercised its discretion to award costs on an attorney and client scale due to the respondents' conduct. Regarding the reserved costs for...

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 1
Parties
Applicant: Eskom Holdings Beperk; Respondent: Christiaan Frederick Marthinus Nigrini NO; Respondent: Mariechen Martins t/a Martins Attorneys
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 January 2017
Case Number
4338/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Application and Rescission
Outcome
Costs awarded against the respondents, jointly and severally, on an attorney and client scale for the urgent application; each party to bear its own costs for the adjournment on 10 March 2016.
Judges
Moodley
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale, Urgent Interdict, Rescission of Judgment
Civil Procedure Costs Award Attorney and Client Scale Urgent Interdict Rescission of Judgment

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eskom Holdings Beperk

Applicant

Christiaan Frederick Marthinus Nigrini NO

Respondent

Mariechen Martins t/a Martins Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Application and Rescission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should bear the costs of the urgent application brought by Eskom to preserve attached funds.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on a punitive attorney and client scale.
  3. 3 Whether each party should bear its own costs for the adjournment on 10 March 2016.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to provide a clear and satisfactory undertaking to retain the attached funds in trust pending the rescission application, and did not disclose that the funds had already been paid to the Trust and partially spent. Ms Martins' conduct, including her misleading undertakings and lack of timely communication, justified Eskom's decision to proceed with the urgent application. The respondents' opposition to the costs order was ill-founded, and their belated concession did not absolve them from liability. The court exercised its discretion to award costs on an attorney and client scale due to the respondents' conduct. Regarding the reserved costs for...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded against the respondents, jointly and severally, on an attorney and client scale for the urgent application; each party to bear its own costs for the adjournment on 10 March 2016.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered, jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the costs of the urgent application on 9 November 2015, such costs to include the opposed hearing on 2 June 2016, on the scale as between attorney and client.
  • The parties are to bear their own costs occasioned by the adjournment on 10 March 2016.