Nedbank v Luvhomba Communication and Information Technology and Others (48411/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 934 (18 September 2015)

Nedbank v Luvhomba Communication and Information Technology and Others (48411/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 934 (18 September 2015)

The court found that the defendants failed to comply with their pre-trial undertakings and did not respond to repeated requests for discovery documents and trial bundle preparation. The absence of a trial bundle did not, in itself, render the matter unready for trial, as the essence of discovery is to avoid surprises. The confusion and withdrawal of counsel, coupled with contradictory instructions between the attorney and counsel, created unnecessary delay and wasted costs. The court declined to make a factual finding as to whether the instructing attorney or counsel was to blame, instead referring the matter to their professional bodies for investigation. In the interim, the defendants...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 934
Parties
Plaintiff: Nedbank; Defendant: Luvhomba Communication & Information Technology; Defendant: Luvhomba Legal Edge CC; Defendant: Malaudzi & Associates CC; Defendant: Gerendra CC; Defendant: Luvhomba Legal Care CC; Defendant: Mzantsi Restaurant CC; Defendant: Legae Le Monate Restaurant CC; Defendant: Luvhomba Projects & Construction CC; Defendant: Luvhomba Security Services & Patrol CC; Defendant: Luvhomba Legae Axe CC; Defendant: Luvhomba Financial Services CC; Defendant: Mathews Tuwani Mulaudzi
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2015
Case Number
48411/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Postponement and Wasted Costs Determination
Outcome
The trial was postponed sine die. The defendants were ordered to pay the wasted costs of 27, 28 August 2015 and 8 September 2015, with the one paying the other to be absolved. The conduct of the instructing attorney and counsel was referred to their respective professional bodies for investigation.
Judges
M F Legodi
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs, Postponement, Trial Bundle, Professional Conduct
Civil Procedure Wasted Costs Postponement Trial Bundle Professional Conduct

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank

Plaintiff

Luvhomba Communication & Information Technology

Defendant

Luvhomba Legal Edge CC

Defendant

Malaudzi & Associates CC

Defendant

Gerendra CC

Defendant

Luvhomba Legal Care CC

Defendant

Mzantsi Restaurant CC

Defendant

Legae Le Monate Restaurant CC

Defendant

Luvhomba Projects & Construction CC

Defendant

Luvhomba Security Services & Patrol CC

Defendant

Luvhomba Legae Axe CC

Defendant

Luvhomba Financial Services CC

Defendant

Mathews Tuwani Mulaudzi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Postponement and Wasted Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is liable for the wasted costs occasioned by the withdrawal of defendants' counsel and the postponement of the trial.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a trial bundle rendered the matter unready for trial.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the instructing attorney and counsel warrants referral to professional bodies.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants failed to comply with their pre-trial undertakings and did not respond to repeated requests for discovery documents and trial bundle preparation. The absence of a trial bundle did not, in itself, render the matter unready for trial, as the essence of discovery is to avoid surprises. The confusion and withdrawal of counsel, coupled with contradictory instructions between the attorney and counsel, created unnecessary delay and wasted costs. The court declined to make a factual finding as to whether the instructing attorney or counsel was to blame, instead referring the matter to their professional bodies for investigation. In the interim, the defendants...

Court Disposition

The trial was postponed sine die. The defendants were ordered to pay the wasted costs of 27, 28 August 2015 and 8 September 2015, with the one paying the other to be absolved. The conduct of the instructing attorney and counsel was referred to their respective professional bodies for investigation.

Orders

  • The trial is postponed sine die.
  • The defendants are to pay the wasted costs of 27, 28 August 2015 and 8 September 2015, the one paying the other to be absolved.