Nedbank Limited v Nojozi (21/23415) [2023] ZAGPJHC 52 (26 January 2023)

Nedbank Limited v Nojozi (21/23415) [2023] ZAGPJHC 52 (26 January 2023)

The court found that the plaintiff was justified in launching the action and subsequent applications, and was contractually entitled to costs on the attorney and client scale. However, the defendant was entitled to wasted costs for the enrolment on 19 July 2022, as the answering affidavit was filed timeously and the matter could not proceed on the unopposed motion court roll. The court clarified that the cost order does not authorize double recovery of costs, and only costs taxed by the taxing master are recoverable. The agreements underlying the litigation provided for attorney and client scale costs, and the plaintiff's entitlement is limited to those costs. The wasted costs for 19 July...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 52
Parties
Plaintiff: Nedbank Limited; Defendant: Nojozi, Nogolide Feziwe
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2023
Case Number
21/23415
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Costs Determination After Settlement and Default Judgment Application
Outcome
Costs awarded to both parties on different aspects; plaintiff to pay wasted costs for 19 July 2022, defendant to pay costs of action and default judgment application.
Judges
Moorcroft
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Settlement Agreement, Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale, Rule 46a Application
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Default Judgment Settlement Agreement Costs Award Attorney and Client Scale Rule 46a Application

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Limited

Plaintiff

Nojozi, Nogolide Feziwe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Costs Determination After Settlement and Default Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs on the attorney and client scale following settlement and default judgment proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to wasted costs for the enrolment on 19 July 2022 after timely opposition and affidavit filing.
  3. 3 Whether costs may be debited twice by the plaintiff in respect of the litigation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was justified in launching the action and subsequent applications, and was contractually entitled to costs on the attorney and client scale. However, the defendant was entitled to wasted costs for the enrolment on 19 July 2022, as the answering affidavit was filed timeously and the matter could not proceed on the unopposed motion court roll. The court clarified that the cost order does not authorize double recovery of costs, and only costs taxed by the taxing master are recoverable. The agreements underlying the litigation provided for attorney and client scale costs, and the plaintiff's entitlement is limited to those costs. The wasted costs for 19 July...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to both parties on different aspects; plaintiff to pay wasted costs for 19 July 2022, defendant to pay costs of action and default judgment application.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the wasted costs of the enrolment on 19 July 2022 on the scale as between attorney and client.
  • Save as aforesaid, the defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the action and the default judgment application on the scale as between attorney and client.