Mkondo v MEC for Health of the Gauteng Provincial Government (2014/14425) [2015] ZAGPJHC 119 (8 June 2015)

Mkondo v MEC for Health of the Gauteng Provincial Government (2014/14425) [2015] ZAGPJHC 119 (8 June 2015)

The court found that the Defendant's reasons for postponement were bona fide and sufficiently persuasive, distinguishing the case from precedents where postponements were refused due to abuse or tactical maneuvering. The Defendant had not sought to gain an unfair advantage, as he immediately appointed new attorneys and did not appear unrepresented. The Plaintiff was prejudiced by the delay, but the Defendant's offer to pay costs mitigated this. The Defendant's laxity in monitoring the State Attorney justified a punitive costs order. The application for postponement was granted, with costs awarded to the Plaintiff on an attorney-client scale.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 119
Parties
Plaintiff: Evelyn Nomsombuko Mkondo; Defendant: MEC for Health of the Gauteng Provincial Government
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2015
Case Number
2014/14425
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Postponement
Outcome
Application for postponement granted; costs awarded to Plaintiff on attorney-client scale.
Judges
Mashile
Legal Topics
Postponement, Costs Award, Attorney Client Privilege
Civil Procedure Postponement Costs Award Attorney Client Privilege

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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evelyn Nomsombuko Mkondo

Plaintiff

MEC for Health of the Gauteng Provincial Government

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's application for postponement should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's reasons for postponement are bona fide and supported by valid grounds.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs occasioned by the postponement and at what scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant's reasons for postponement were bona fide and sufficiently persuasive, distinguishing the case from precedents where postponements were refused due to abuse or tactical maneuvering. The Defendant had not sought to gain an unfair advantage, as he immediately appointed new attorneys and did not appear unrepresented. The Plaintiff was prejudiced by the delay, but the Defendant's offer to pay costs mitigated this. The Defendant's laxity in monitoring the State Attorney justified a punitive costs order. The application for postponement was granted, with costs awarded to the Plaintiff on an attorney-client scale.

Court Disposition

Application for postponement granted; costs awarded to Plaintiff on attorney-client scale.

Orders

  • The case is postponed sine dies.
  • The Defendant will pay the costs of the Plaintiff, including those of two Counsel, as at the scale between attorney and client.