Nadas v Game Store and Others (D962/2000) [2001] ZALC 28 (21 February 2001)

Nadas v Game Store and Others (D962/2000) [2001] ZALC 28 (21 February 2001)

The applicant withdrew his review application without tendering costs and provided no substantive reason for resisting a costs order. The Court found that all relevant facts were before it and not in dispute, making it unnecessary to allow the applicant to file affidavits. In accordance with Rule 13 of the Labour Court and Rule 41(1)(c) of the High Court, the first respondent was entitled to apply for costs. The withdrawal was due to the Union's inability to contact the applicant, and no other justification was offered. The Court therefore ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 28
Parties
Applicant: Muruviah Nadas; Respondent: Game Store and Others; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Afzul Soobedaar
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 February 2001
Case Number
D962/2000
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Costs After Withdrawal
Outcome
Application for costs granted in favour of the first respondent.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Application, Costs Award, Rule 13 Labour Court, Rule 41 High Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Withdrawal of Application Costs Award Rule 13 Labour Court Rule 41 High Court

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muruviah Nadas

Applicant

Game Store and Others

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Afzul Soobedaar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Costs After Withdrawal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the first respondent's costs after withdrawing the review application without tendering costs.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should have been given an opportunity to oppose the costs application by filing affidavits.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant withdrew his review application without tendering costs and provided no substantive reason for resisting a costs order. The Court found that all relevant facts were before it and not in dispute, making it unnecessary to allow the applicant to file affidavits. In accordance with Rule 13 of the Labour Court and Rule 41(1)(c) of the High Court, the first respondent was entitled to apply for costs. The withdrawal was due to the Union's inability to contact the applicant, and no other justification was offered. The Court therefore ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Application for costs granted in favour of the first respondent.

Orders

  • The applicant is ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.