Hough N.O and Others v AFGRI Bedryfs Beperk and Others (943/2006) [2006] ZANWHC 66 (2 November 2006)

Hough N.O and Others v AFGRI Bedryfs Beperk and Others (943/2006) [2006] ZANWHC 66 (2 November 2006)

The court found that the applicants' conduct in launching multiple defective and urgent applications, then withdrawing them at the last minute, demonstrated disregard for court rules and procedural fairness. However, the respondents did not properly notify the applicants' attorney of their intention to seek a costs order de bonis propriis, and thus such an order could not be granted. The circumstances justified a punitive costs order against the applicants themselves, on attorney and client scale, for all applications under the case number, including costs incurred on 26 October 2006. The order was made jointly and severally against the applicants, with payment by one absolving the others.

Citation
[2006] ZANWHC 66
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Albertus Hough NO; Applicant: Aletha Catharina Hough NO; Applicant: Jacobus Albertus Hough; Applicant: Aletha Catharina Hough; Respondent: AFGRI Bedryfs Beperk; Respondent: Herman du Plessis; Respondent: Ernst J V Penzhorn; Respondent: R P R Ackerman; Respondent: J S Taljaard; Respondent: A J Du Toit
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2006
Case Number
943/2006
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Special costs order granted against the applicants on attorney and client scale; no costs order de bonis propriis against their attorney.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Costs Order, Withdrawal of Application, Prokureur and Client Scale
Civil Procedure Costs Order Withdrawal of Application Prokureur 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Albertus Hough NO

Applicant

Aletha Catharina Hough NO

Applicant

Jacobus Albertus Hough

Applicant

Aletha Catharina Hough

Applicant

AFGRI Bedryfs Beperk

Respondent

Herman du Plessis

Respondent

Ernst J V Penzhorn

Respondent

R P R Ackerman

Respondent

J S Taljaard

Respondent

A J Du Toit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a special costs order on attorney and client scale should be granted against the applicants following withdrawal of their urgent application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' attorney should be held personally liable for costs de bonis propriis.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the applicants in launching and withdrawing multiple applications justifies a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' conduct in launching multiple defective and urgent applications, then withdrawing them at the last minute, demonstrated disregard for court rules and procedural fairness. However, the respondents did not properly notify the applicants' attorney of their intention to seek a costs order de bonis propriis, and thus such an order could not be granted. The circumstances justified a punitive costs order against the applicants themselves, on attorney and client scale, for all applications under the case number, including costs incurred on 26 October 2006. The order was made jointly and severally against the applicants, with payment by one absolving the others.

Court Disposition

Special costs order granted against the applicants on attorney and client scale; no costs order de bonis propriis against their attorney.

Orders

  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first, second, and third respondents in respect of all applications under case number 943/2006 on attorney and client scale, jointly and severally, payment by one absolving the others.
  • The costs include those incurred on 26 October 2006.