Matini v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health Eastern Cape Province - Costs (169/2017) [2023] ZAECBHC 31 (19 August 2023)
The court found that the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation was marked by persistent disregard for court rules, case management directives, and specific orders, resulting in substantial prejudice to the plaintiff and unnecessary delay in the resolution of the matter. The defendant failed to comply with multiple directives to file expert notices and reports, and her applications for rescission and condonation were removed from the roll without a tender of costs, contrary to procedural expectations. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on the attorney and client scale for the rule 30A application, including reserved costs, and to party and party costs for the...
- Citation
- [2023] ZAECBHC 31
- Parties
- Applicant: Luzuko Matini; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health Eastern Cape Province
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 19 August 2023
- Case Number
- 169/2017
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Application / Post Interlocutory, Determination of Costs Following Interlocutory and Case Management Applications
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for costs is granted. Defendant is ordered to pay costs as specified.
- Judges
- Hartle
- Legal Topics
- Costs Award, Punitive Costs, Case Management Directives, Rule 30a Application, Removal of Application, State Liability
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Luzuko Matini
Applicant
Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health Eastern Cape Province
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Interlocutory, Determination of Costs Following Interlocutory and Case Management Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs on a punitive scale for the rule 30A application due to the defendant's persistent non-compliance with court orders and directives.
- 2 Whether the defendant is liable for costs occasioned by the removal of her applications from the roll without a tender of costs.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff's requests for condonation and supplementary affidavits should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation was marked by persistent disregard for court rules, case management directives, and specific orders, resulting in substantial prejudice to the plaintiff and unnecessary delay in the resolution of the matter. The defendant failed to comply with multiple directives to file expert notices and reports, and her applications for rescission and condonation were removed from the roll without a tender of costs, contrary to procedural expectations. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on the attorney and client scale for the rule 30A application, including reserved costs, and to party and party costs for the...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for costs is granted. Defendant is ordered to pay costs as specified.
Orders
- The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the rule 30A application commenced on 30 May 2022 on the scale of attorney and client, including reserved costs of the enrolment of the application on the opposed motion court roll of 24 November 2022.
- The defendant is liable to pay the costs occasioned by the removal of the application(s) initiated on 19 August 2022 from the motion court roll of 27 September 2022, including the costs of the application in terms of rule 41(1)(c), such costs limited to the party and party scale.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment