Mashishimale Communal Property Associatio and Another v Hiemstra and Another (LCC 54/2010) [2011] ZALCC 20 (12 December 2011)

Mashishimale Communal Property Associatio and Another v Hiemstra and Another (LCC 54/2010) [2011] ZALCC 20 (12 December 2011)

The court found that no costs order could be made in the contempt application because the respondent was not given an opportunity to explain why costs should not be awarded against him, as required by the suspended order of 19 August 2011. In the urgent application, the matter was settled and all parties contributed to the resolution; therefore, each party should bear its own costs for 26 October 2011. However, the respondent's failure to file a signed answering affidavit on time resulted in wasted costs for the proceedings on 17 October 2011, which the respondent must bear. The court concluded that there was no basis to award costs in favour of any party for the contempt application or...

Citation
[2011] ZALCC 20
Parties
Applicant: Mashishimale Communal Property Association; Applicant: Binopac (Pty) Ltd trading as Marakapula Reserve; Respondent: Johannes Hiemstra; Respondent: The Sheriff for Phalaborwa; Respondent: The Regional Land Claims Commissioner: Limpopo; Respondent: The Minister of Land Affairs
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2011
Case Number
LCC 54/2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment Costs Determination Following Contempt and Urgent Applications
Outcome
No order as to costs is made regarding the contempt of court application. Each party pays its own costs for the urgent application settled on 26 October 2011. The respondent is ordered to pay the wasted costs of 17 October 2011. No order as to costs is made regarding the present application.
Judges
Mpshe
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Contempt of Court, Urgent Application, Wasted Costs
Civil Procedure Land and Property Costs Award Contempt of Court Urgent Application Wasted Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashishimale Communal Property Association

Applicant

Binopac (Pty) Ltd trading as Marakapula Reserve

Applicant

Johannes Hiemstra

Respondent

The Sheriff for Phalaborwa

Respondent

The Regional Land Claims Commissioner: Limpopo

Respondent

The Minister of Land Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Judgment Costs Determination Following Contempt and Urgent Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a costs order in the contempt application heard on 19 August 2011.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded in respect of the urgent application settled on 26 October 2011.
  3. 3 Who should bear the wasted costs occasioned by the late and unsigned answering affidavit filed on 17 October 2011.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no costs order could be made in the contempt application because the respondent was not given an opportunity to explain why costs should not be awarded against him, as required by the suspended order of 19 August 2011. In the urgent application, the matter was settled and all parties contributed to the resolution; therefore, each party should bear its own costs for 26 October 2011. However, the respondent's failure to file a signed answering affidavit on time resulted in wasted costs for the proceedings on 17 October 2011, which the respondent must bear. The court concluded that there was no basis to award costs in favour of any party for the contempt application or...

Court Disposition

No order as to costs is made regarding the contempt of court application. Each party pays its own costs for the urgent application settled on 26 October 2011. The respondent is ordered to pay the wasted costs of 17 October 2011. No order as to costs is made regarding the present application.

Orders

  • No order as to costs is made regarding the contempt of court application heard on 19 August 2011.
  • Each party pays its own costs with regard to the urgent application settled on 26 October 2011.