Mutise v Clover SA (Pty) Ltd (JR643/01) [2003] ZALCJHB 13 (19 March 2003)

Mutise v Clover SA (Pty) Ltd (JR643/01) [2003] ZALCJHB 13 (19 March 2003)

The court found that the repeated postponements were caused solely by the conduct of the applicant's attorneys, who failed to appear and continued to represent the applicant without proper diligence. In fairness to the applicant, the court exercised its discretion to grant a postponement to allow him to seek new representation. However, the court held that the applicant's attorneys of record should bear the wasted costs incurred by the respondent due to their conduct, ordering costs on a party and party scale de bonis propriis.

Citation
[2003] ZALCJHB 13
Parties
Applicant: P Mutise; Respondent: Clover SA (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2003
Case Number
JR643/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Postponement and Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The matter was postponed sine die. The applicant's attorneys of record were ordered to pay the wasted costs incurred by the respondent de bonis propriis.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Arbitration Review, Legal Representation, Postponement, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Review Legal Representation Postponement Costs Award

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

P Mutise

Applicant

Clover SA (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Postponement and Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted a postponement to seek new representation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's attorneys should bear the wasted costs incurred due to repeated postponements.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the applicant's attorneys justified a costs order de bonis propriis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the repeated postponements were caused solely by the conduct of the applicant's attorneys, who failed to appear and continued to represent the applicant without proper diligence. In fairness to the applicant, the court exercised its discretion to grant a postponement to allow him to seek new representation. However, the court held that the applicant's attorneys of record should bear the wasted costs incurred by the respondent due to their conduct, ordering costs on a party and party scale de bonis propriis.

Court Disposition

The matter was postponed sine die. The applicant's attorneys of record were ordered to pay the wasted costs incurred by the respondent de bonis propriis.

Orders

  • The matter is postponed sine die.
  • The applicant's attorneys of record, Moosa, Jeremiah & Associates Inc, are to pay the wasted costs incurred on a scale as between party and party but de bonis propriis.