Modiba v Toussaint and Another (45637/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 63 (1 February 2023)

Modiba v Toussaint and Another (45637/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 63 (1 February 2023)

The court found that the applicant had no legal right to the documents sought, and the respondents had no duty to provide them, yet both parties acted beyond their strict legal obligations. The overriding consideration was fairness, and the court determined that neither party should be penalized with a costs order. Condonation for the late filing of the answering affidavit was granted as the delay was satisfactorily explained and no prejudice resulted.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 63
Parties
Applicant: Mpentu Modiba; Respondent: Lynda Toussaint; Respondent: Unjani Clinics NPC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 February 2023
Case Number
45637/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination After Documents Provided
Outcome
Each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
CP Wesley
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Discretion of Court, Condonation of Late Filing
Civil Procedure Costs Award Discretion of Court Condonation of Late Filing

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpentu Modiba

Applicant

Lynda Toussaint

Respondent

Unjani Clinics NPC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination After Documents Provided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should be liable to pay the costs of the application after the respondents provided the requested documents without a legal obligation.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the respondents' answering affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had no legal right to the documents sought, and the respondents had no duty to provide them, yet both parties acted beyond their strict legal obligations. The overriding consideration was fairness, and the court determined that neither party should be penalized with a costs order. Condonation for the late filing of the answering affidavit was granted as the delay was satisfactorily explained and no prejudice resulted.

Court Disposition

Each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • Each party shall pay their own costs in the application.