Matomela v Presbyterian Church of South Africa (483/2008) [2008] ZAECHC 197 (19 November 2008)

Matomela v Presbyterian Church of South Africa (483/2008) [2008] ZAECHC 197 (19 November 2008)

The court found that the applicant's conduct in seeking a postponement at the last moment, in the context of a significant delay in bringing the application, demonstrated a lack of regard for the respondents' rights and the court's convenience. This justified a punitive costs order on the attorney and client scale. However, the court declined to order that the proceedings be stayed until payment of the wasted costs, as there were insufficient facts on record to support such an additional punitive measure. The matter was postponed by consent, and the applicant was ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 197
Parties
Applicant: Eric Nkosivumile Matomela; Respondent: Presbyterian Church of South Africa; Respondent: Banile Bishop Nocanda; Respondent: Advocate NJ Mullins
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2008
Case Number
483/2008
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Postponement of Opposed Motion
Outcome
Matter postponed by consent; applicant ordered to pay wasted costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Jones
Legal Topics
Postponement, Punitive Costs, Unreasonable Delay, Review Application, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Postponement Punitive Costs Unreasonable Delay Review Application Attorney and Client 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Nkosivumile Matomela

Applicant

Presbyterian Church of South Africa

Respondent

Banile Bishop Nocanda

Respondent

Advocate NJ Mullins

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Postponement of Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's late request for postponement justifies a punitive costs order.
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be stayed until payment of wasted costs.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's delay in bringing the review application is unreasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's conduct in seeking a postponement at the last moment, in the context of a significant delay in bringing the application, demonstrated a lack of regard for the respondents' rights and the court's convenience. This justified a punitive costs order on the attorney and client scale. However, the court declined to order that the proceedings be stayed until payment of the wasted costs, as there were insufficient facts on record to support such an additional punitive measure. The matter was postponed by consent, and the applicant was ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.

Court Disposition

Matter postponed by consent; applicant ordered to pay wasted costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The matter is postponed by consent to a date to be arranged.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the 1st and 2nd respondents' wasted costs occasioned by the postponement on the scale as between attorney and client.