Murray N.O and Others v Burger N.O and Others (5797/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 89 (16 September 2020)

Murray N.O and Others v Burger N.O and Others (5797/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 89 (16 September 2020)

The court found that the applicants were not entitled to costs on a punitive attorney and client scale, as there were no sufficient grounds for such an order. The respondents' opposition was justified given the applicants' demand for punitive costs, and their conduct was not vexatious or malicious. The applicants succeeded in obtaining interim relief, and the general rule that costs follow the event applied up to 3 March 2020. However, costs incurred after that date were unnecessary, and both parties' legal representatives failed to resolve the matter efficiently. Therefore, each party was ordered to pay its own costs from 4 March 2020 onwards. The rule nisi was discharged, and the...

Citation
[2020] ZALMPPHC 89
Parties
Applicant: Antoinette Murray N.O; Applicant: Courtney Chanel Murray N.O; Applicant: Keighton Murray N.O; Respondent: Leone-Kelly Burger N.O; Respondent: Kelly Meyer N.O; Respondent: The Sheriff of the High Court for the District of Mookgophong
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2020
Case Number
5797/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Interim Relief; Final Order on Costs
Outcome
Applicants awarded party and party costs up to 3 March 2020; each party to pay own costs thereafter; rule nisi discharged.
Judges
M Naude
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Party and Party Scale, Attorney and Client Scale, Urgent Ex Parte Application, Rule Nisi, Settlement Offer
Civil Procedure Costs Award Party and Party Scale Attorney and Client Scale Urgent Ex Parte Application Rule Nisi Settlement Offer

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antoinette Murray N.O

Applicant

Courtney Chanel Murray N.O

Applicant

Keighton Murray N.O

Applicant

Leone-Kelly Burger N.O

Respondent

Kelly Meyer N.O

Respondent

The Sheriff of the High Court for the District of Mookgophong

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Interim Relief; Final Order on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to costs on a punitive attorney and client scale.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents acted vexatiously or maliciously in opposing the application.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on a party and party scale or otherwise.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were not entitled to costs on a punitive attorney and client scale, as there were no sufficient grounds for such an order. The respondents' opposition was justified given the applicants' demand for punitive costs, and their conduct was not vexatious or malicious. The applicants succeeded in obtaining interim relief, and the general rule that costs follow the event applied up to 3 March 2020. However, costs incurred after that date were unnecessary, and both parties' legal representatives failed to resolve the matter efficiently. Therefore, each party was ordered to pay its own costs from 4 March 2020 onwards. The rule nisi was discharged, and the...

Court Disposition

Applicants awarded party and party costs up to 3 March 2020; each party to pay own costs thereafter; rule nisi discharged.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued on 10 September 2019 is discharged.
  • The first and second respondents, as trustees of the Lauyer Trust, IT No 1134/12, are ordered to pay the costs of this application on a party and party scale up to and including the costs of 3 March 2020.