Feni v Pan South African Language Board and Another (49965/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 125 (25 April 2019)

Feni v Pan South African Language Board and Another (49965/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 125 (25 April 2019)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was moot because the relief sought was expressly interim and dependent on the outcome of a previously dismissed case. The applicant did not refute the respondents' contention that the matter was moot, and the cases were not consolidated. The punitive cost order was reaffirmed as justified. Regarding wasted costs, the court held that the applicant should not bear these costs, as the error was due to miscommunication within the legal team, and justice required that the responsible attorneys pay the costs de bonis propriis.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 125
Parties
Applicant: Zixolisile Feni; Respondent: Pan South African Language Board; Respondent: Mpho Reginald Monareng
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 April 2019
Case Number
49965/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; wasted costs to be paid by applicant's attorneys de bonis propriis.
Judges
E Van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Mootness, Costs Order, Wasted Costs
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Mootness Costs Order Wasted 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zixolisile Feni

Applicant

Pan South African Language Board

Respondent

Mpho Reginald Monareng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted despite the main application being dismissed as moot.
  2. 2 Whether the punitive cost order previously granted was justified.
  3. 3 Who should bear the wasted costs occasioned by the removal of the application from the roll due to late arrival of counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was moot because the relief sought was expressly interim and dependent on the outcome of a previously dismissed case. The applicant did not refute the respondents' contention that the matter was moot, and the cases were not consolidated. The punitive cost order was reaffirmed as justified. Regarding wasted costs, the court held that the applicant should not bear these costs, as the error was due to miscommunication within the legal team, and justice required that the responsible attorneys pay the costs de bonis propriis.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; wasted costs to be paid by applicant's attorneys de bonis propriis.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The wasted costs associated with the removal of the application for leave to appeal from the roll on 1 March 2019, on an attorney and own client scale, are to be paid jointly and severally by Makhafola & Verster Inc and Mr S Makhafola de bonis propriis, the one to pay the other to be absolved.