Mzitshane and Another v Kloppers (LCC211/2016) [2019] ZALCC 5 (23 January 2019)

Mzitshane and Another v Kloppers (LCC211/2016) [2019] ZALCC 5 (23 January 2019)

The court found that the applicants were aware of the sale of the property well before the matter was set down for hearing and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the new owner and join them to the proceedings. The respondent had no legal duty to inform the applicants of the registration of transfer, and there was no evidence of bad faith or egregious conduct on his part. The applicants, as dominus litis, bore the responsibility to identify and join the correct parties. No special or exceptional circumstances were present to justify a departure from the general rule against awarding costs in social litigation. Accordingly, the application for a costs order was...

Citation
[2019] ZALCC 5
Parties
Applicant: Mbuyiselo Mzitshane; Applicant: Sanah Nontsikelelo Bojosi; Respondent: Ferdinand Kloppers
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 January 2019
Case Number
LCC211/2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Postponement After Main Application; Costs Application Following Change of Property Ownership
Outcome
Application for a costs order dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Canca
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Costs in Social Litigation, Joinder of Parties, Public Interest Litigation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Costs in Social Litigation Joinder of Parties Public Interest Litigation

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbuyiselo Mzitshane

Applicant

Sanah Nontsikelelo Bojosi

Applicant

Ferdinand Kloppers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Postponement After Main Application; Costs Application Following Change of Property Ownership

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's failure to inform the applicants of the change in property ownership warrants a costs order against him.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent conducted the litigation in bad faith, justifying a departure from the general rule on costs in social litigation.
  3. 3 Whether special or exceptional circumstances exist to justify a costs order in this matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were aware of the sale of the property well before the matter was set down for hearing and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the new owner and join them to the proceedings. The respondent had no legal duty to inform the applicants of the registration of transfer, and there was no evidence of bad faith or egregious conduct on his part. The applicants, as dominus litis, bore the responsibility to identify and join the correct parties. No special or exceptional circumstances were present to justify a departure from the general rule against awarding costs in social litigation. Accordingly, the application for a costs order was...

Court Disposition

Application for a costs order dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for a costs order is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.