Hamata and Another v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee and Others (2) (384/2000) [2002] ZASCA 102 (9 September 2002)

Hamata and Another v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee and Others (2) (384/2000) [2002] ZASCA 102 (9 September 2002)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the issue upon which the appellants succeeded was indeed raised in the founding affidavit and heads of argument. The court rejected the respondents' contention that the appellants succeeded on a point not previously raised. Furthermore, the court held that in motion proceedings, applicants are required to present their full case from the outset, and the respondents had the opportunity to apply for separate adjudication of any decisive issue but did not do so. The court concluded that there was no good cause to vary the existing provisional orders as to costs, as not all grounds of attack were found to be without merit. Accordingly, the provisional...

Citation
[2002] ZASCA 102
Parties
Appellant: Max Hamata; Appellant: Freedom of Expression Institute; Respondent: Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee; Respondent: Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Council Disciplinary Committee; Respondent: Council; Respondent: Peninsula Technikon
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 September 2002
Case Number
384/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the provisional orders as to costs are made final.
Judges
Hefer, Howie, Marais, Navsa, Nugent
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Motion Proceedings, Legal Representation, Discretion of Tribunal
Civil Procedure Costs Orders Motion Proceedings Legal Representation Discretion of Tribunal

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Max Hamata

Appellant

Freedom of Expression Institute

Appellant

Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee

Respondent

Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Council Disciplinary Committee

Respondent

Council

Respondent

Peninsula Technikon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants succeeded on a point not raised in either court.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants unnecessarily traversed issues resulting in extra expense.
  3. 3 Whether the existing provisional orders as to costs should be varied.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the issue upon which the appellants succeeded was indeed raised in the founding affidavit and heads of argument. The court rejected the respondents' contention that the appellants succeeded on a point not previously raised. Furthermore, the court held that in motion proceedings, applicants are required to present their full case from the outset, and the respondents had the opportunity to apply for separate adjudication of any decisive issue but did not do so. The court concluded that there was no good cause to vary the existing provisional orders as to costs, as not all grounds of attack were found to be without merit. Accordingly, the provisional...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed and the provisional orders as to costs are made final.

Orders

  • No variation of the existing costs orders is granted.
  • Each party is to abide by the final costs orders as previously determined.