Hlatswayo and Another v Maake and Others (24833/20) [2020] ZAGPPHC 651 (11 September 2020)

Hlatswayo and Another v Maake and Others (24833/20) [2020] ZAGPPHC 651 (11 September 2020)

The court found that the conduct of the first and sixth respondents triggered the urgent application, and the applicants were justified in approaching the court when no response was received from CIPC. However, once the applicants became aware that the relief sought had been achieved and the matter was moot, their refusal to withdraw the application resulted in unnecessary costs. The court held that the applicants are entitled to costs incurred up to 14 June 2020, but not thereafter, as any further costs were unnecessarily incurred. The respondents are ordered to pay the applicants' costs jointly and severally, excluding costs incurred after 14 June 2020.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 651
Parties
Applicant: Nomakhosi Gay Hlatswayo; Applicant: Dumisani Jonas Christopher Ntuli; Respondent: Mokhutamane Kenneth Maake; Respondent: Collaborate Advisory & Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Companies & Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC); Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa Limited; Respondent: Food & Beverages & Manufacturing SETA; Respondent: Collaborate Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2020
Case Number
24833/20
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Main Relief Became Moot
Outcome
Costs awarded to applicants up to 14 June 2020; costs incurred thereafter not awarded.
Judges
V M Nqumse
Legal Topics
Director Removal, Shareholder Meeting Irregularity, Costs Award, Companies Act Section 61, Mootness, Urgent Application Procedure
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Director Removal Shareholder Meeting Irregularity Costs Award Companies Act Section 61 Mootness Urgent Application Procedure

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomakhosi Gay Hlatswayo

Applicant

Dumisani Jonas Christopher Ntuli

Applicant

Mokhutamane Kenneth Maake

Respondent

Collaborate Advisory & Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Companies & Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC)

Respondent

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited

Respondent

Food & Beverages & Manufacturing SETA

Respondent

Collaborate Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Main Relief Became Moot

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a costs order after the main relief became moot.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' conduct justified a departure from the general rule on costs.
  3. 3 Whether costs incurred after the matter became moot should be awarded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the conduct of the first and sixth respondents triggered the urgent application, and the applicants were justified in approaching the court when no response was received from CIPC. However, once the applicants became aware that the relief sought had been achieved and the matter was moot, their refusal to withdraw the application resulted in unnecessary costs. The court held that the applicants are entitled to costs incurred up to 14 June 2020, but not thereafter, as any further costs were unnecessarily incurred. The respondents are ordered to pay the applicants' costs jointly and severally, excluding costs incurred after 14 June 2020.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to applicants up to 14 June 2020; costs incurred thereafter not awarded.

Orders

  • Save for the costs incurred after 14 June 2020, the respondents are jointly and severally ordered to pay, the one paying the other to be absolved, the applicants' costs, such costs to include the costs of counsel.