Molatoli v Medshield Medical Scheme and Another (405/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 40 (26 January 2021)

Molatoli v Medshield Medical Scheme and Another (405/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 40 (26 January 2021)

The court held that the applicant was entitled to the costs of the application because the first respondent only provided the requested report after opposing the application and filing an answering affidavit, which necessitated further litigation steps by the applicant. The respondent's argument that the applicant should have used PAIA was not considered, as the merits were no longer before the court. The court found that the respondent could have avoided costs by providing the report upon service of the application. However, the court declined to award costs on a punitive scale, as the respondent's conduct did not warrant such an order.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 40
Parties
Applicant: Adelaide Ntsako Molatoli; Respondent: Medshield Medical Scheme; Respondent: Council for Medical Schemes
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2021
Case Number
405/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Withdrawal of Application
Outcome
Application removed from the roll; first respondent ordered to pay costs.
Judges
E.M Kubushi
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Withdrawal of Application, Access to Information
Civil Procedure Costs Award Withdrawal of Application Access to Information

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adelaide Ntsako Molatoli

Applicant

Medshield Medical Scheme

Respondent

Council for Medical Schemes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Withdrawal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs after the application was withdrawn due to the respondent providing the requested report.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on a punitive scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant was entitled to the costs of the application because the first respondent only provided the requested report after opposing the application and filing an answering affidavit, which necessitated further litigation steps by the applicant. The respondent's argument that the applicant should have used PAIA was not considered, as the merits were no longer before the court. The court found that the respondent could have avoided costs by providing the report upon service of the application. However, the court declined to award costs on a punitive scale, as the respondent's conduct did not warrant such an order.

Court Disposition

Application removed from the roll; first respondent ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The application is removed from the roll.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.