Jones v Potgieter and Others (14555/2012) [2012] ZAGPPHC 332 (7 December 2012)

Jones v Potgieter and Others (14555/2012) [2012] ZAGPPHC 332 (7 December 2012)

The court held that the applicant was not a party to the agreement reached between the first respondent and the third to sixth respondents and thus could not claim any benefit arising from it. The agreement primarily settled the value of the first respondent's shareholding and did not expressly include the cost order, which was a final directive of the court. The writ of execution issued against the applicant was valid, as the first respondent was entitled to pursue any co-debtor for the full amount of the joint debt. However, having paid the taxed costs, the applicant was entitled to claim a contribution from the third to sixth respondents for their share of the costs.

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 332
Parties
Applicant: Kenneth Alfred Jones; Respondent: Richard Potgieter; Respondent: Johannes Petrus Lombard; Respondent: Milkor (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Andries Christoffel Piek; Respondent: Welma Joubert; Respondent: Andries Christoffel Piek N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 December 2012
Case Number
14555/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
The writ of execution against the applicant was valid. The applicant is entitled to recover a portion of the costs from the third to sixth respondents.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI
Legal Topics
Writ of Execution, Costs Order, Compromise Agreement, Joint and Several Liability
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Writ of Execution Costs Order Compromise Agreement Joint and Several Liability

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Alfred Jones

Applicant

Richard Potgieter

Respondent

Johannes Petrus Lombard

Respondent

Milkor (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Andries Christoffel Piek

Respondent

Welma Joubert

Respondent

Andries Christoffel Piek N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the writ of execution was validly issued against the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement between the first respondent and the third to sixth respondents extinguished the applicant's liability for costs.
  3. 3 Whether the third to sixth respondents' liability for costs was extinguished by the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant was not a party to the agreement reached between the first respondent and the third to sixth respondents and thus could not claim any benefit arising from it. The agreement primarily settled the value of the first respondent's shareholding and did not expressly include the cost order, which was a final directive of the court. The writ of execution issued against the applicant was valid, as the first respondent was entitled to pursue any co-debtor for the full amount of the joint debt. However, having paid the taxed costs, the applicant was entitled to claim a contribution from the third to sixth respondents for their share of the costs.

Court Disposition

The writ of execution against the applicant was valid. The applicant is entitled to recover a portion of the costs from the third to sixth respondents.

Orders

  • The third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents are to pay the applicant the sum of R107,542.36, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.
  • The applicant and the third to sixth respondents are to pay the first respondent's costs, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.