Moosa v Ramsugit and Others (2136/2017) [2020] ZAECPEHC 8 (3 March 2020)

Moosa v Ramsugit and Others (2136/2017) [2020] ZAECPEHC 8 (3 March 2020)

The court found that all relevant factors, including the respondent's resort to self-help and the offer to restore possession, were considered in determining the costs order. The ordinary rule awarding costs to the successful party was applied after weighing the conduct of both parties. The court held that its discretion was exercised judicially and that there is no reasonable prospect that an appeal court would interfere with the costs order. No significant matter of law or principle warranted appellate intervention, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] ZAECPEHC 8
Parties
Applicant: Mogamat Rifaad Moosa; Respondent: Himat Ramsugit; Respondent: Claudette Dorothy Louisa van der Mescht (N.O.); Respondent: Wanda Alfonso (N.O)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2020
Case Number
2136/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
G.G. Goosen
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Judicial Discretion, Mandament Van Spolie, Self Help, Unlawful Dispossession
Civil Procedure Costs Award Judicial Discretion Mandament Van Spolie Self Help Unlawful Dispossession

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mogamat Rifaad Moosa

Applicant

Himat Ramsugit

Respondent

Claudette Dorothy Louisa van der Mescht (N.O.)

Respondent

Wanda Alfonso (N.O)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in awarding costs to the respondent despite findings of unlawful dispossession.
  2. 2 Whether ethical and moral considerations should have led to a different costs order.
  3. 3 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would interfere with the costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all relevant factors, including the respondent's resort to self-help and the offer to restore possession, were considered in determining the costs order. The ordinary rule awarding costs to the successful party was applied after weighing the conduct of both parties. The court held that its discretion was exercised judicially and that there is no reasonable prospect that an appeal court would interfere with the costs order. No significant matter of law or principle warranted appellate intervention, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.