Mthombeni v Masuku and Others (2025-124686) [2025] ZAGPPHC 783 (4 August 2025)

Mthombeni v Masuku and Others (2025-124686) [2025] ZAGPPHC 783 (4 August 2025)

The court found that the second respondent was not involved in the unlawful eviction and was improperly joined as a party to the spoliation proceedings. The applicant ignored the second respondent's invitation to withdraw and tender costs, leading to unnecessary litigation expenses. In light of these facts, the court held that justice and fairness required a departure from the general rule on costs, and a punitive costs order was warranted against the applicant in favour of the second respondent.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 783
Parties
Applicant: Nkhesani Theodora Mthombeni; Respondent: Nompucuko Masuku; Respondent: Pam Golding Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Jannie Swanepoel
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2025
Case Number
2025-124686
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Spoliation Application
Outcome
The applicant is ordered to pay the second respondent's costs on the scale of attorney and client.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Spoliation, Costs Orders, Punitive Costs
Civil Procedure Joinder of Parties Spoliation Costs Orders Punitive 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nkhesani Theodora Mthombeni

Applicant

Nompucuko Masuku

Respondent

Pam Golding Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Jannie Swanepoel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Spoliation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent was correctly joined as a party to the spoliation proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether a punitive costs order should be granted against the applicant in favour of the second respondent.
  3. 3 Whether there was any evidence linking the second and third respondents to the unlawful eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent was not involved in the unlawful eviction and was improperly joined as a party to the spoliation proceedings. The applicant ignored the second respondent's invitation to withdraw and tender costs, leading to unnecessary litigation expenses. In light of these facts, the court held that justice and fairness required a departure from the general rule on costs, and a punitive costs order was warranted against the applicant in favour of the second respondent.

Court Disposition

The applicant is ordered to pay the second respondent's costs on the scale of attorney and client.

Orders

  • The applicant is to pay the second respondent’s costs on the scale of attorney and client.