Hlathi v Free State Gambling and Liqour Authority and Another (4575/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 29 (25 February 2016)

Hlathi v Free State Gambling and Liqour Authority and Another (4575/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 29 (25 February 2016)

The respondents failed to comply with prescribed time limits for filing their notice of opposition, answering affidavits, and heads of argument, resulting in unnecessary postponements and wasted costs. Their explanations for the delays were unconvincing and without merit. The respondents' conduct amounted to a disregard for the applicant's rights and statutory obligations, justifying a punitive costs order. The court exercised its discretion to award costs occasioned by the postponement as costs in the main application and ordered the first respondent to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 29
Parties
Applicant: Mapule Meriam Hlathi; Respondent: Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority; Respondent: The Chairman of the Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2016
Case Number
4575/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination After Main Relief Granted
Outcome
Costs occasioned by the postponement of 26 November 2015 are costs in the main application. The first respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Bokwa
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Punitive Costs, Postponement, Attorney and Client Scale
Civil Procedure Costs Award Punitive Costs Postponement Attorney and Client Scale

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mapule Meriam Hlathi

Applicant

Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority

Respondent

The Chairman of the Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination After Main Relief Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs occasioned by the postponement of 26 November 2015.
  2. 2 Whether a punitive costs order is justified against the respondents for procedural delays.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to comply with prescribed time limits for filing their notice of opposition, answering affidavits, and heads of argument, resulting in unnecessary postponements and wasted costs. Their explanations for the delays were unconvincing and without merit. The respondents' conduct amounted to a disregard for the applicant's rights and statutory obligations, justifying a punitive costs order. The court exercised its discretion to award costs occasioned by the postponement as costs in the main application and ordered the first respondent to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Costs occasioned by the postponement of 26 November 2015 are costs in the main application. The first respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The costs occasioned by the postponement of 26 November 2015 are costs in the main application.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a scale between attorney and client.