Mokakale v Road Accident Fund (A1055/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 89 (11 February 2016)

Mokakale v Road Accident Fund (A1055/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 89 (11 February 2016)

The majority of the court held that the costs order made by the trial court was ambiguous, particularly in light of the final paragraph stating that 'all the amounts awarded are subject to 60% apportionment.' However, the majority found that there was no reason to deprive the appellant of any part of his costs, as the general rule is that costs follow the event and no grounds for apportionment of costs were advanced or found in the proceedings. The ambiguity was resolved in favour of the appellant, and the appeal was upheld, with the costs order being set aside and replaced by an order that the respondent pay the costs of the action. The dissenting judge, Mabuse J, considered the order to...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 89
Parties
Appellant: Mogomotsi Shadrack Mokakale; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 February 2016
Case Number
A1055/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; costs order of the trial court set aside and replaced.
Judges
A.A. Louw, N.P. Mngqibisa-Thusi, P.M. Mabuse
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Apportionment of Liability, Road Accident Fund Act, Interpretation of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Delict Costs Award Apportionment of Liability Road Accident Fund Act Interpretation of Court Orders

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mogomotsi Shadrack Mokakale

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs awarded to the appellant should be subject to 60% apportionment as per the merits settlement.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court's order regarding costs was ambiguous or clear.
  3. 3 Whether the proper procedure to resolve ambiguity in a court order is by appeal or by application under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority of the court held that the costs order made by the trial court was ambiguous, particularly in light of the final paragraph stating that 'all the amounts awarded are subject to 60% apportionment.' However, the majority found that there was no reason to deprive the appellant of any part of his costs, as the general rule is that costs follow the event and no grounds for apportionment of costs were advanced or found in the proceedings. The ambiguity was resolved in favour of the appellant, and the appeal was upheld, with the costs order being set aside and replaced by an order that the respondent pay the costs of the action. The dissenting judge, Mabuse J, considered the order to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; costs order of the trial court set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • Paragraph 28(e) of the order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the action.'