Mokoena v Road Accident Fund (1971/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 93 (6 June 2019)

Mokoena v Road Accident Fund (1971/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 93 (6 June 2019)

The court held that the separation of merits and quantum in this Division results in distinct trials with attendant costs. The plaintiff was ready to proceed, while the defendant was not, and the merits were settled with the defendant accepting liability for 60% of the plaintiff's damages. The plaintiff was thus the substantially successful party. The court distinguished Mbatha on the basis of procedural differences and found that delaying the costs award would be inequitable. The general rule that costs follow the result applied, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's taxed or agreed party and party costs on the High Court scale, including reasonable travel and...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 93
Parties
Plaintiff: Nicholaas Kenny Mokoena; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2019
Case Number
1971/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Merits Settled Before Trial; Costs Determined by Written Argument
Outcome
Merits settled; defendant ordered to pay 60% of plaintiff's damages and party and party costs on the High Court scale.
Judges
Naidoo
Legal Topics
Costs Order, Road Accident Fund Liability, Separation of Merits and Quantum, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Delict Costs Order Road Accident Fund Liability Separation of Merits and Quantum Party and Party 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholaas Kenny Mokoena

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Merits Settled Before Trial; Costs Determined by Written Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs on a party and party scale following settlement of merits.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded immediately or be costs in the cause, pending quantum determination.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court or Magistrates Court tariff should apply to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the separation of merits and quantum in this Division results in distinct trials with attendant costs. The plaintiff was ready to proceed, while the defendant was not, and the merits were settled with the defendant accepting liability for 60% of the plaintiff's damages. The plaintiff was thus the substantially successful party. The court distinguished Mbatha on the basis of procedural differences and found that delaying the costs award would be inequitable. The general rule that costs follow the result applied, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's taxed or agreed party and party costs on the High Court scale, including reasonable travel and...

Court Disposition

Merits settled; defendant ordered to pay 60% of plaintiff's damages and party and party costs on the High Court scale.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay 60% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's taxed or agreed party and party costs on the High Court scale, including reasonable travel and accommodation expenses for the plaintiff and necessary witnesses, and costs of counsel including preparation and reservation fees.