Malao v K Malao Inc and Others (60617/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 503 (12 August 2021)

Malao v K Malao Inc and Others (60617/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 503 (12 August 2021)

The court found that the applicant, in his personal capacity as attorney, was the driving force behind the urgent application and failed in his professional duties toward the court and the administration of justice. The punitive costs order de bonis propriis was warranted due to the unacceptable and obstinate manner in which he conducted litigation. The issues raised in this second application for leave to appeal are res judicata, having already been adjudicated in the first application for leave to appeal. No case was made out for condonation of the late filing, particularly as the costs issue is now final. The discretion to award costs lies with the court, and there is no basis to...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 503
Parties
Applicant: Kabelo Philemon Lucas Malao; Respondent: K Malao Inc; Respondent: Investec Bank Limited; Respondent: The Road Accident Fund; Respondent: The Sheriff for Sandton South; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2021
Case Number
60617/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Second Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of First Application; Includes Application for Condonation for Late Filing.
Outcome
Application for condonation and second application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
A C Basson
Legal Topics
De Bonis Propriis Costs, Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Costs Discretion, Res Judicata
Civil Procedure De Bonis Propriis Costs Condonation Leave to Appeal Costs Discretion Res Judicata

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kabelo Philemon Lucas Malao

Applicant

K Malao Inc

Respondent

Investec Bank Limited

Respondent

The Road Accident Fund

Respondent

The Sheriff for Sandton South

Respondent

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Second Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of First Application; Includes Application for Condonation for Late Filing.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to appeal against the punitive costs order de bonis propriis made against him personally as attorney.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the second application for leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the issue of costs is res judicata and precludes further challenge.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, in his personal capacity as attorney, was the driving force behind the urgent application and failed in his professional duties toward the court and the administration of justice. The punitive costs order de bonis propriis was warranted due to the unacceptable and obstinate manner in which he conducted litigation. The issues raised in this second application for leave to appeal are res judicata, having already been adjudicated in the first application for leave to appeal. No case was made out for condonation of the late filing, particularly as the costs issue is now final. The discretion to award costs lies with the court, and there is no basis to...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and second application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for condonation as well as the application for leave to appeal are dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the second and third respondents’ costs on an attorney and client scale.