Matsepes Ingelyf and Others v Wessels and Others (959/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 20 (12 February 2015)

Matsepes Ingelyf and Others v Wessels and Others (959/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 20 (12 February 2015)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the cost order was erroneously granted under Rule 42(1)(a). The withdrawal of the defence was not shown to be conditional upon each party bearing its own costs, and the applicants did not provide evidence that they lacked personal knowledge of the possibility of a cost order against them. The trial judge exercised discretion in awarding costs, and there was no indication that the judgment was granted in error or that any relevant fact was withheld from the court. The application to set aside the cost order was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ZAFSHC 20
Parties
Applicant: Matsepes Ingelyf; Applicant: Tsiu Vincent Matsepe N.O.; Applicant: Ottlie Anton Noordman N.O.; Respondent: Sarel Johannes Wessels; Respondent: Elizabeth Maria Venter; Respondent: Sebastiaan Jacobus Wessels; Respondent: Meester van die Hooggeregshof
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2015
Case Number
959/2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Set Aside a Previous Cost Order Under Rule 42(1)(a)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
S J Reinders
Legal Topics
Rule 42 Erroneous Judgment, Costs Orders, Default Judgment, Withdrawal of Defence
Civil Procedure Rule 42 Erroneous Judgment Costs Orders Default Judgment Withdrawal of Defence

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matsepes Ingelyf

Applicant

Tsiu Vincent Matsepe N.O.

Applicant

Ottlie Anton Noordman N.O.

Applicant

Sarel Johannes Wessels

Respondent

Elizabeth Maria Venter

Respondent

Sebastiaan Jacobus Wessels

Respondent

Meester van die Hooggeregshof

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Set Aside a Previous Cost Order Under Rule 42(1)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cost order granted against the applicants in their personal capacities was erroneously made under Rule 42(1)(a).
  2. 2 Whether the withdrawal of the defence by the applicants was subject to a condition that each party bears its own costs.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants had personal knowledge that a cost order could be made against them.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the cost order was erroneously granted under Rule 42(1)(a). The withdrawal of the defence was not shown to be conditional upon each party bearing its own costs, and the applicants did not provide evidence that they lacked personal knowledge of the possibility of a cost order against them. The trial judge exercised discretion in awarding costs, and there was no indication that the judgment was granted in error or that any relevant fact was withheld from the court. The application to set aside the cost order was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.