Marleo Besigheidstrust v Hou Vrede Boerdery (Edms) Bpk (CA 11/2005) [2005] ZANWHC 67 (22 September 2005)

Marleo Besigheidstrust v Hou Vrede Boerdery (Edms) Bpk (CA 11/2005) [2005] ZANWHC 67 (22 September 2005)

The court found that the appellant was not entitled to the return of 15 Friesian cows, as the contract only entitled him to the return of 90 cows and the respondent had already returned 85, with a tender for the remaining five heifers in milk. The appellant failed to properly interpret the contract and did not replicate to the respondent's evidence regarding financial circumstances. The magistrate was justified in awarding costs on a higher scale due to the vexatious nature of the proceedings, as the appellant abandoned his application on the return date. Although the magistrate erred in ordering costs as determined by the Pretoria Association of Advocates, the error was rendered academic...

Citation
[2005] ZANWHC 67
Parties
Appellant: Marleo Besigheidstrust; Respondent: Hou Vrede Boerdery (Edms) Bpk
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2005
Case Number
CA 11/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order and Application for Condonation and Amendment of Grounds of Appeal
Outcome
The appeal, the application for condonation, and the application to amend the grounds of appeal are dismissed with costs.
Judges
A A Landman, S R Monaledi
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Contract Cancellation, Attorney and Client Scale, Condonation, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Costs Award Contract Cancellation Attorney and Client Scale Condonation 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marleo Besigheidstrust

Appellant

Hou Vrede Boerdery (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order and Application for Condonation and Amendment of Grounds of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in awarding costs on a higher scale to the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate was empowered to order costs as determined by the Pretoria Association of Advocates.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to condonation for late application and amendment of grounds of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant was not entitled to the return of 15 Friesian cows, as the contract only entitled him to the return of 90 cows and the respondent had already returned 85, with a tender for the remaining five heifers in milk. The appellant failed to properly interpret the contract and did not replicate to the respondent's evidence regarding financial circumstances. The magistrate was justified in awarding costs on a higher scale due to the vexatious nature of the proceedings, as the appellant abandoned his application on the return date. Although the magistrate erred in ordering costs as determined by the Pretoria Association of Advocates, the error was rendered academic...

Court Disposition

The appeal, the application for condonation, and the application to amend the grounds of appeal are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late application for a hearing date is dismissed with costs.
  • The application to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed with costs.