Mpumalanga MEC for Public Works v Kwa-Mahlaba Connect CC (303/2021) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 8 (21 February 2021)

Mpumalanga MEC for Public Works v Kwa-Mahlaba Connect CC (303/2021) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 8 (21 February 2021)

The court found that the settlement between the applicant and ICT Globe rendered the opposition of Kwa-Mahlaba and Uniwisp unsustainable, but did not justify a costs order against them for the main hearing. The postponement on 9 February 2021 was due to insufficient time afforded to the respondents to prepare their...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAMPMBHC 8
Parties
Applicant: Mpumalanga MEC for Public Works, Roads & Transport; Applicant: Mpumalanga Department of Public Works, Roads & Transport; Respondent: Kwa-Mahlaba Connect CC; Respondent: Uniwisp (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: ICT Globe Management (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: ABT Telecoms (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Cheapcalls; Respondent: ICASA
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 February 2021
Case Number
303/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Partial Withdrawal and Settlement
Outcome
Costs partially awarded against the applicant for the reserved costs of 9 February 2021; each party to pay its own costs for 16 February 2021.
Judges
B A Mashile
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Urgent Interdict, Electronic Communications Act, Porting of Telephone Numbers
Civil Procedure Telecoms and Media Costs Award Urgent Interdict Electronic Communications Act Porting of Telephone Numbers

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpumalanga MEC for Public Works, Roads & Transport

Applicant

Mpumalanga Department of Public Works, Roads & Transport

Applicant

Kwa-Mahlaba Connect CC

Respondent

Uniwisp (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

ICT Globe Management (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

ABT Telecoms (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Cheapcalls

Respondent

ICASA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Partial Withdrawal and Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the urgent application following the withdrawal and settlement between the applicant and one respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were afforded sufficient time to prepare answering papers for the urgent application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's success in settlement entitles it to a costs order against the remaining respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the settlement between the applicant and ICT Globe rendered the opposition of Kwa-Mahlaba and Uniwisp unsustainable, but did not justify a costs order against them for the main hearing. The postponement on 9 February 2021 was due to insufficient time afforded to the respondents to prepare their answering papers, and the applicant was held liable for those costs. For the subsequent hearing on 16 February 2021, each party was ordered to pay its own costs, as the matter had effectively collapsed and no party could be singled out for liability. The court emphasized that the settlement was a product of negotiation, not a judicial determination, and fairness required that...

Court Disposition

Costs partially awarded against the applicant for the reserved costs of 9 February 2021; each party to pay its own costs for 16 February 2021.

Orders

  • The applicant is liable for the costs of Kwa-Mahlaba and Uniwisp for the 9th of February 2021.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs for the 16th of February 2021.