Mahlo and Others v City of Ekurhuleni Municipality and Another (2019/08890) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1047 (28 December 2022)

Mahlo and Others v City of Ekurhuleni Municipality and Another (2019/08890) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1047 (28 December 2022)

The applicants were successful in all proceedings, and the respondents' conduct, particularly their unexplained non-compliance with clear court orders, warrants the award of costs. However, punitive costs are not justified for the main proceedings solely due to the infringement of constitutional rights, as this is not the standard practice. The respondents' failure to comply with the order of 12 March 2019, without any credible explanation, constitutes serious misconduct justifying a punitive costs order for the contempt application. Costs for all other proceedings are awarded on the ordinary party and party scale.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 1047
Parties
Applicant: Sarah Mahlo; Applicant: Nomsa Siwela; Applicant: Samantha Jonson and Others; Respondent: City of Ekurhuleni Municipality; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 December 2022
Case Number
2019/08890
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Costs Determination Following Review and Urgent Applications
Outcome
Costs awarded in favour of the applicants: punitive costs for the urgent contempt application and ordinary costs for all other reserved proceedings.
Judges
RJ Moultrie
Legal Topics
Trading Permits, Judicial Review, Urgent Interdict, Contempt of Court, Costs Award
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Trading Permits Judicial Review Urgent Interdict Contempt of Court Costs Award

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Mahlo

Applicant

Nomsa Siwela

Applicant

Samantha Jonson and Others

Applicant

City of Ekurhuleni Municipality

Respondent

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Costs Determination Following Review and Urgent Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to costs following the review and urgent applications.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on a punitive scale due to the respondents' conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' non-compliance with court orders justifies a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were successful in all proceedings, and the respondents' conduct, particularly their unexplained non-compliance with clear court orders, warrants the award of costs. However, punitive costs are not justified for the main proceedings solely due to the infringement of constitutional rights, as this is not the standard practice. The respondents' failure to comply with the order of 12 March 2019, without any credible explanation, constitutes serious misconduct justifying a punitive costs order for the contempt application. Costs for all other proceedings are awarded on the ordinary party and party scale.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded in favour of the applicants: punitive costs for the urgent contempt application and ordinary costs for all other reserved proceedings.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered jointly and severally to pay the applicants’ costs associated with the urgent contempt application launched on 14 March 2019 and heard on 15 March 2019 on the attorney and client scale.
  • The respondents are ordered jointly and severally to pay the applicants’ costs associated with all other proceedings in the matter in relation to which the costs have been reserved on the party and party scale.