Mantella Trading 341 CC v Thompson N.O and Another (19066/09) [2013] ZAGPPHC 352 (19 November 2013)

Mantella Trading 341 CC v Thompson N.O and Another (19066/09) [2013] ZAGPPHC 352 (19 November 2013)

The court found that, following the amendment to the particulars of claim and the defendants' concession, the road indicated on the amended diagram is a public road as defined in the Limpopo Roads Agency Act. The litigation was concluded on this basis. Regarding costs, the court exercised its discretion, considering the late amendment, the withdrawal of defences and counter-claims, and the overall history of the matter. It was deemed fair that each party bear its own costs, except that the defendants must pay the costs related to their conditional counter-claims and the costs of the experts, including reasonable travel expenses. The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of a senior counsel.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 352
Parties
Plaintiff: Mantella Trading 341 CC; Defendant: Mark Byron Thompson N.O.; Defendant: Michelle Cecille Thompson N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2013
Case Number
19066/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment After Amendment to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Declaratory order granted; costs apportioned as per judgment.
Judges
H J Fabricius
Legal Topics
Public Road Declaration, Limpopo Roads Agency Act, Costs Award, Amendment of Pleadings
Land and Property Public Road Declaration Limpopo Roads Agency Act Costs Award Amendment of Pleadings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mantella Trading 341 CC

Plaintiff

Mark Byron Thompson N.O.

Defendant

Michelle Cecille Thompson N.O.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment After Amendment to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the road indicated on the amended diagram is a public road as defined in the Limpopo Roads Agency Act.
  2. 2 Which party should bear the costs of the litigation, including costs of experts and counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, following the amendment to the particulars of claim and the defendants' concession, the road indicated on the amended diagram is a public road as defined in the Limpopo Roads Agency Act. The litigation was concluded on this basis. Regarding costs, the court exercised its discretion, considering the late amendment, the withdrawal of defences and counter-claims, and the overall history of the matter. It was deemed fair that each party bear its own costs, except that the defendants must pay the costs related to their conditional counter-claims and the costs of the experts, including reasonable travel expenses. The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of a senior counsel.

Court Disposition

Declaratory order granted; costs apportioned as per judgment.

Orders

  • The road indicated on the amended compilation diagram marked 'X' is declared to be a public road as defined in the Limpopo Roads Agency Act, Act 7 of 1998, with specific reference to points C to K.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs, except that defendants are ordered to pay the costs pertaining to their conditional counter-claims and the costs of the experts H. van der Merwe, H. Lessermann and A. Gerber, including reasonable travel expenses.