Lechoano v Mogotsi and Others (3227/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 159 (10 September 2018)

Lechoano v Mogotsi and Others (3227/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 159 (10 September 2018)

The court found that the 1st respondent's conduct in failing to file opposition timeously, submitting the opposing affidavit only the day before the hearing, and not filing heads of argument resulted in the day being wasted. The applicant's counsel was unable to argue the matter due to these procedural failures. The 1st respondent conceded to these facts and requested that costs be costs in the cause, but the court determined that the wasted costs should be borne by the 1st respondent. The order for costs against the 1st respondent was justified by his conduct, which persisted even after the initial hearing, as evidenced by the late filing of heads of argument and the request for...

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 159
Parties
Applicant: Moaledi Andries Lechoano; Respondent: Lebeko Andries Mogotsi; Respondent: Precinct Financial Services Pty Ltd; Respondent: ABSA Bank Ltd; Respondent: First National Bank
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2018
Case Number
3227/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reasons for Costs Order Following Urgent Interdict and Settlement Proceedings
Outcome
The court confirmed the order that the 1st respondent is to pay the wasted costs of the extension of the Rule Nisi.
Judges
M Opperman
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs, Rule Nisi Extension, Urgent Interdict, Settlement Agreement
Civil Procedure Wasted Costs Rule Nisi Extension Urgent Interdict Settlement Agreement

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moaledi Andries Lechoano

Applicant

Lebeko Andries Mogotsi

Respondent

Precinct Financial Services Pty Ltd

Respondent

ABSA Bank Ltd

Respondent

First National Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reasons for Costs Order Following Urgent Interdict and Settlement Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st respondent should be ordered to pay the wasted costs of the extension of the Rule Nisi.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the 1st respondent justified a costs order against him.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for late filing of heads of argument should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st respondent's conduct in failing to file opposition timeously, submitting the opposing affidavit only the day before the hearing, and not filing heads of argument resulted in the day being wasted. The applicant's counsel was unable to argue the matter due to these procedural failures. The 1st respondent conceded to these facts and requested that costs be costs in the cause, but the court determined that the wasted costs should be borne by the 1st respondent. The order for costs against the 1st respondent was justified by his conduct, which persisted even after the initial hearing, as evidenced by the late filing of heads of argument and the request for...

Court Disposition

The court confirmed the order that the 1st respondent is to pay the wasted costs of the extension of the Rule Nisi.

Orders

  • The 1st respondent is ordered to pay the wasted costs of the extension of the Rule Nisi.
  • Condonation for the late filing of heads of argument is noted but does not affect the costs order.