Maninjwa v Velocity Finance (RF) Limited (5589/21) [2021] ZAGPPHC 666 (15 October 2021)

Maninjwa v Velocity Finance (RF) Limited (5589/21) [2021] ZAGPPHC 666 (15 October 2021)

The court found that the respondent's conduct in amending its particulars of claim while an exception was pending constituted a disregard for court processes, justifying a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale for those steps. However, the initial defective particulars of claim and the withdrawal of the first action did not warrant a punitive scale, and costs for those steps were awarded on a party and party scale. The court held that a tender for costs is not equivalent to a court order where the scale and items are disputed, and a court order is necessary before taxation. The respondent's answering affidavit was admitted as the deponent had sufficient knowledge of the...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 666
Parties
Applicant: Sivuyile Abednigo Maninjwa; Respondent: Velocity Finance (RF) Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 October 2021
Case Number
5589/21
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings and Costs Order
Outcome
Application granted in part; costs orders made on both party and party and attorney and client scales; respondent's action stayed pending payment of taxed costs.
Judges
Mthimunye
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Costs Orders, Exception Procedure, Attorney and Client Scale, Withdrawal of Action
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Stay of Proceedings Costs Orders Exception Procedure Attorney and Client Scale Withdrawal of Action

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sivuyile Abednigo Maninjwa

Applicant

Velocity Finance (RF) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tender for costs is equivalent to a court order and can be presented to the Taxing Master for taxation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to all the costs claimed and on which scale.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's answering affidavit, deposed to by Ms Gillian, is properly before the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's conduct in amending its particulars of claim while an exception was pending constituted a disregard for court processes, justifying a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale for those steps. However, the initial defective particulars of claim and the withdrawal of the first action did not warrant a punitive scale, and costs for those steps were awarded on a party and party scale. The court held that a tender for costs is not equivalent to a court order where the scale and items are disputed, and a court order is necessary before taxation. The respondent's answering affidavit was admitted as the deponent had sufficient knowledge of the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; costs orders made on both party and party and attorney and client scales; respondent's action stayed pending payment of taxed costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's taxed costs relating to the exception and heads of argument under case number 31239/2020 on a party and party scale.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's taxed costs occasioned by the amendment of particulars of claim and the Rule 30 notice under case number 31239/2020 on an attorney and client scale.