Maduna and Another v Maduna and Others (54312/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1215 (23 June 2017)

Maduna and Another v Maduna and Others (54312/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1215 (23 June 2017)

The court found that the applicants, having withdrawn the main application without tendering costs, were in the position of unsuccessful litigants and liable for the respondents' costs. The answering affidavit was necessary as the application remained pending until formal withdrawal. No exceptional circumstances were present to justify deviation from the general rule that the withdrawing party pays costs. The court declined to award further punitive costs beyond those already ordered in the urgent application, finding that to do so would amount to double punishment. The application to strike out was refused, as the court was not persuaded that the paragraphs in question were sufficiently...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1215
Parties
Applicant: Dr Penuell Mpapa Maduna; Applicant: Sithabile Charity Sithole; Respondent: Nompumelelo Cheryl Maduna; Respondent: Nompumelelo Cheryl Maduna obo The Nompumelelo Maduna Family Trust IT 1180/2000; Respondent: Marie Louise Nykamp obo The Nompumelelo Maduna Family Trust IT 1180/2000; Respondent: Dr Penuel Mpapa Maduna obo The Nompumelelo Maduna Family Trust IT 1180/2000; Respondent: Ngazana Liquid Fuels (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Tshwarisano LFB Investment (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Jitendra M Jeena as director of the Fifth Respondent; Respondent: Euro Blitz 30 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Nokulungu Maduna; Respondent: Sasol Limited; Respondent: Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 June 2017
Case Number
54312/2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Withdrawal; Costs and Striking Out Applications Following Withdrawal of Main Application
Outcome
Applicants are ordered to pay the respondents' costs in the condonation application on an attorney and client scale, and the costs in the main application, Rule 30 notice, and present application on a party and party scale, all to include the costs of senior counsel. The application to strike out is refused.
Judges
S C Mia
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Application, Costs Award, Punitive Costs, Striking Out, Rule 30 Notice
Civil Procedure Withdrawal of Application Costs Award Punitive Costs Striking Out Rule 30 Notice

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Penuell Mpapa Maduna

Applicant

Sithabile Charity Sithole

Applicant

Nompumelelo Cheryl Maduna

Respondent

Nompumelelo Cheryl Maduna obo The Nompumelelo Maduna Family Trust IT 1180/2000

Respondent

Marie Louise Nykamp obo The Nompumelelo Maduna Family Trust IT 1180/2000

Respondent

Dr Penuel Mpapa Maduna obo The Nompumelelo Maduna Family Trust IT 1180/2000

Respondent

Ngazana Liquid Fuels (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Tshwarisano LFB Investment (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Jitendra M Jeena as director of the Fifth Respondent

Respondent

Euro Blitz 30 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Nokulungu Maduna

Respondent

Sasol Limited

Respondent

Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Withdrawal; Costs and Striking Out Applications Following Withdrawal of Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to costs following the withdrawal of the main application by the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on an attorney and client scale, including senior counsel fees.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' application to strike out portions of the applicants' affidavit should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, having withdrawn the main application without tendering costs, were in the position of unsuccessful litigants and liable for the respondents' costs. The answering affidavit was necessary as the application remained pending until formal withdrawal. No exceptional circumstances were present to justify deviation from the general rule that the withdrawing party pays costs. The court declined to award further punitive costs beyond those already ordered in the urgent application, finding that to do so would amount to double punishment. The application to strike out was refused, as the court was not persuaded that the paragraphs in question were sufficiently...

Court Disposition

Applicants are ordered to pay the respondents' costs in the condonation application on an attorney and client scale, and the costs in the main application, Rule 30 notice, and present application on a party and party scale, all to include the costs of senior counsel. The application to strike out is refused.

Orders

  • Applicants are to pay the costs of the respondents in the application for condonation on an attorney and client scale to include the cost of senior counsel.
  • Applicants are to pay the costs of the respondents in the main application, the Rule 30 notice, and the present application on the party and party scale to include the cost of senior counsel.