M-Quip Mining and Diesel CC and Another v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Another (49176/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 936 (2 November 2017)

M-Quip Mining and Diesel CC and Another v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Another (49176/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 936 (2 November 2017)

The court found that the settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the second defendant vindicated its preliminary view that the first defendant had a bona fide defence. The plaintiffs' claim against the first defendant was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the first defendant's costs. The court applied the principle that costs follow the result, as the first defendant was substantially successful due to the settlement excluding it and resolving the claim between all parties except the first defendant.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 936
Parties
Plaintiff: M-Quip Mining and Diesel CC; Plaintiff: Templore Trading 69 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited; Defendant: Govan Mbeki Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2017
Case Number
49176/2017
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim against the first defendant for costs is dismissed. Plaintiffs are ordered to pay the first defendant's costs jointly and severally.
Judges
T.S Madima
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Security Deposit Refund, Costs Award, Contractual Settlement
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Security Deposit Refund Costs Award Contractual Settlement

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M-Quip Mining and Diesel CC

Plaintiff

Templore Trading 69 (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Defendant

Govan Mbeki Municipality

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of the security deposit following cancellation of the township development.
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant is liable to repay the security deposit to the plaintiffs.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs or the first defendant should be awarded costs following settlement between the plaintiffs and the second defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the second defendant vindicated its preliminary view that the first defendant had a bona fide defence. The plaintiffs' claim against the first defendant was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the first defendant's costs. The court applied the principle that costs follow the result, as the first defendant was substantially successful due to the settlement excluding it and resolving the claim between all parties except the first defendant.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim against the first defendant for costs is dismissed. Plaintiffs are ordered to pay the first defendant's costs jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The cost claim against the first defendant is dismissed.
  • The plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the first defendant jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.