Mashavha v Enaex Africa (Pty) Ltd (2022/18404) [2024] ZAGPJHC 387; 2025 (1) SA 466 (GJ) (22 April 2024)

Mashavha v Enaex Africa (Pty) Ltd (2022/18404) [2024] ZAGPJHC 387; 2025 (1) SA 466 (GJ) (22 April 2024)

The court held that Rule 67A applies to costs orders made after its commencement, even in cases instituted before 12 April 2024. The appropriate scale for party and party costs must be determined by the actual complexity, importance, and value of the matter as presented, not by its potential complexity or the subjective views of the parties. In this case, the issues were straightforward, limited to jurisdiction and standing, and the hearing was brief. No misconduct or exceptional complexity was demonstrated. The default scale A applies, and no further order is necessary. The court declined to inflate recoverable costs by awarding a higher scale, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 387
Parties
Applicant: Lucky Ephraim Mashavha; Respondent: Enaex Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sasol Limited; Respondent: Africa Arising Capital (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Enterprise Outsourcing; Respondent: EOH Network Solutions
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 April 2024
Case Number
2022/18404
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Motion Court; Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded to the respondents on the party and party scale A under Rule 67A.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Costs Awards, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 67a, Party and Party Scale, Jurisdiction, Standing
Civil Procedure Costs Awards Uniform Rules of Court Rule 67a Party and Party Scale Jurisdiction Standing

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucky Ephraim Mashavha

Applicant

Enaex Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Sasol Limited

Respondent

Africa Arising Capital (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Enterprise Outsourcing

Respondent

EOH Network Solutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Opposed Motion Court; Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 67A of the Uniform Rules of Court applies to costs orders in this case.
  2. 2 Which scale (A, B, or C) under Rule 67A is appropriate for the award of party and party costs.
  3. 3 Whether the complexity, importance, or value of the case justifies a higher costs scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 67A applies to costs orders made after its commencement, even in cases instituted before 12 April 2024. The appropriate scale for party and party costs must be determined by the actual complexity, importance, and value of the matter as presented, not by its potential complexity or the subjective views of the parties. In this case, the issues were straightforward, limited to jurisdiction and standing, and the hearing was brief. No misconduct or exceptional complexity was demonstrated. The default scale A applies, and no further order is necessary. The court declined to inflate recoverable costs by awarding a higher scale, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded to the respondents on the party and party scale A under Rule 67A.

Orders

  • The applicant, Mr. Mashavha, is ordered to pay the costs of the application on the party and party scale A as per Rule 67A.
  • No further order is made regarding costs scales.