Manaka v South African National Council for the Blind (JS83/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 91 (6 March 2018)

Manaka v South African National Council for the Blind (JS83/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 91 (6 March 2018)

The court found that Makhubela Attorneys were primarily responsible for the late withdrawal and the resulting postponement. Their failure to address settlement earlier and to prepare adequately for trial led to the crisis in trial preparation. Although the applicant was not entirely blameless, the main cause of the postponement was Makhubela's belated preparations. Therefore, in law and fairness, Makhubela Attorneys should pay the respondent's wasted costs of the postponement.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 91
Parties
Applicant: Molontjie Franscisca Manaka; Respondent: South African National Council for the Blind
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2018
Case Number
JS83/14
Procedural Posture
Costs Order / Postponement After Withdrawal of Attorneys
Outcome
Makhubela Attorneys are ordered to pay the respondent's wasted costs of the postponement.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Costs of Postponement, Withdrawal of Attorneys, Trial Preparation, Wasted Costs
Labour Law Civil Procedure Costs of Postponement Withdrawal of Attorneys Trial Preparation Wasted Costs

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molontjie Franscisca Manaka

Applicant

South African National Council for the Blind

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Order / Postponement After Withdrawal of Attorneys

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Makhubela Attorneys and the applicant should be held liable for the wasted costs of the postponement.
  2. 2 Whether the late withdrawal of attorneys was the primary cause of the postponement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Makhubela Attorneys were primarily responsible for the late withdrawal and the resulting postponement. Their failure to address settlement earlier and to prepare adequately for trial led to the crisis in trial preparation. Although the applicant was not entirely blameless, the main cause of the postponement was Makhubela's belated preparations. Therefore, in law and fairness, Makhubela Attorneys should pay the respondent's wasted costs of the postponement.

Court Disposition

Makhubela Attorneys are ordered to pay the respondent's wasted costs of the postponement.

Orders

  • Makhubela Attorneys must pay the respondent’s wasted costs of the postponement.