Mandla Linx (Pty) Ltd v Vermaak and Others (82647/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 858 (15 September 2016)

Mandla Linx (Pty) Ltd v Vermaak and Others (82647/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 858 (15 September 2016)

The court found that both parties obtained some relief regarding the service entry dispute, but the respondent's conduct in erecting steel droppers to block access constituted unlawful self-help. The applicant was forced to seek urgent relief, and the restoration of possession was finally adjudicated. However, the court was not persuaded that the respondent's conduct warranted a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale. The overriding principle was that costs should follow the cause, and the applicant was entitled to costs of the urgent application, including reserved costs, on a party and party basis. The disputes regarding other breaches of the sale agreement and broader...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 858
Parties
Applicant: Mandla Linx (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ephraim Vermaak N.O.; Respondent: Maria Petronella Vermaak N.O.; Respondent: Ephraim Vermaak
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2016
Case Number
82647/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Application
Outcome
Costs of the urgent application, including reserved costs, are awarded in favour of the applicant, jointly and severally against the respondents.
Judges
Makhubele
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Costs Award, Right of Access, Sale of Immovable Property
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Costs Award Right of Access Sale of Immovable Property

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandla Linx (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ephraim Vermaak N.O.

Respondent

Maria Petronella Vermaak N.O.

Respondent

Ephraim Vermaak

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs of the urgent application.
  2. 2 Whether the costs should be awarded on an attorney and client scale.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct justified a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties obtained some relief regarding the service entry dispute, but the respondent's conduct in erecting steel droppers to block access constituted unlawful self-help. The applicant was forced to seek urgent relief, and the restoration of possession was finally adjudicated. However, the court was not persuaded that the respondent's conduct warranted a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale. The overriding principle was that costs should follow the cause, and the applicant was entitled to costs of the urgent application, including reserved costs, on a party and party basis. The disputes regarding other breaches of the sale agreement and broader...

Court Disposition

Costs of the urgent application, including reserved costs, are awarded in favour of the applicant, jointly and severally against the respondents.

Orders

  • The respondents are directed to pay the costs of the urgent application, including the reserved costs of 28 October 2015, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved.