Northam Taxi Association v Molepo and Others (1428/05) [2005] ZANWHC 101 (2 December 2005)
The applicant served a notice of set down for the hearing on 17 November 2005. The applicant's attorney subsequently notified the respondents' attorney by fax on 16 November 2005 that the matter would be removed from the roll or not placed on the roll. The respondents incurred costs in preparation for the hearing up...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] ZANWHC 101
- Parties
- Applicant: Northam Taxi Association; Respondent: N I Molepo; Respondent: T G Mashinini; Respondent: D R Rantsoeu; Respondent: M J Makutu; Respondent: Z M Mofokeng; Respondent: S S Ngolwane
- Court
- North West High Court, Mafikeng
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 1428/05
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Costs Determination After Removal From Roll
- Outcome
- Applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' wasted costs for preparing for the hearing up to the receipt of the fax of 16 November 2005.
- Judges
- A A Landman
- Legal Topics
- Wasted Costs, Removal From Roll, Notice of Set Down
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Northam Taxi Association
Applicant
N I Molepo
Respondent
T G Mashinini
Respondent
D R Rantsoeu
Respondent
M J Makutu
Respondent
Z M Mofokeng
Respondent
S S Ngolwane
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination After Removal From Roll
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is liable for wasted costs incurred by the respondents in preparation for the hearing after the matter was removed from the roll.
- 2 Whether the respondents were entitled to rely on the applicant's fax communication regarding the removal of the matter from the roll.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant served a notice of set down for the hearing on 17 November 2005. The applicant's attorney subsequently notified the respondents' attorney by fax on 16 November 2005 that the matter would be removed from the roll or not placed on the roll. The respondents incurred costs in preparation for the hearing up to the receipt of this fax. The court held that the applicant is responsible for the wasted costs incurred by the respondents up to the time the fax was received, as the respondents were entitled to rely on the notice of set down until formally notified of the removal. The respondents were not required to attend court on 17 November 2005 after receiving the fax.
Court Disposition
Applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' wasted costs for preparing for the hearing up to the receipt of the fax of 16 November 2005.
Orders
- The applicant is to pay the respondents' wasted costs for preparing for the hearing up to the receipt of the fax of 16 November 2005 by the respondents' attorney.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE NO.: 1428/05
In the matter between:
NORTHAM TAXI ASSOCIATION APPLICANT
AND
N I MOLEPO 1ST RESPONDENT
T G MASHININI 2ND RESPONDENT
D R RANTSOEU 3RD RESPONDENT
M J MAKUTU 4TH RESPONDENT
Z M MOFOKENG 5TH RESPONDENT
S S NGOLWANE 6TH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
LANDMAN J:
[1] The applicant, Northam Taxi Association, set this matter down for hearing on 17 November 2005 by way of a notice of set down which was served on the respondentsâ attorneys on 15 November 2005.
[2] The next day the applicantâs attorney wrote to the respondentsâ attorney to say that âwe at this stage will remove this matter from the roll on 17 November 2005, alternatively we will not place the matter on the rollâ.
[3] On 17 November, Mr Da Silva appeared for the respondent in this matter. Mr Theussen appeared for the applicants. Both counsel also appeared for the same parties in the matter no 1377/05 which was also set down for hearing on 17 November.
[4] The applicant is responsible for the wasted costs incurred until the respondent received the fax on 16 November 2005. The respondent was entitled to rely on fax and did not need to attend on 17 November.
[5] In the premises the applicant is to pay the respondentsâ wasted costs for preparing for the hearing up to the receipt of the fax of 16 November 2005 by respondentsâ attorney.
_____________
A A LANDMAN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES
DATE OF HEARING: 17 NOVEMBER 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 2 DECEMBER 2005
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT: ADV THEUSSEN
ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT: S M MOOKELETSI
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADV DA SILVA
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS: KGOMO, MOKHETLE & TLOU