P. M v R. M and Another (6414/21) [2022] ZAWCHC 12 (8 February 2022)

P. M v R. M and Another (6414/21) [2022] ZAWCHC 12 (8 February 2022)

The applicant failed to provide admissible evidence under oath that the Mont Blanc sunglasses and R3 750 cash were in the vehicle at the time of dispossession. The respondents' denial of possession of these items was not implausible or far-fetched, and the purported concession in settlement correspondence was privileged and inadmissible. The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify attorney and client costs, as the respondents' conduct was not objectionable. However, the applicant was justified in employing her Durban attorney and is entitled to party and party costs, including reasonable disbursements for travel and accommodation, except for the costs of the Worcester...

Citation
[2022] ZAWCHC 12
Parties
Applicant: P.M; Respondent: R.M; Respondent: G.M.M
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 February 2022
Case Number
6414/21
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination After Return of Vehicle; Argument on Remaining Disputed Items and Costs
Outcome
Application for the return of Mont Blanc sunglasses and R3 750 cash dismissed; costs awarded to applicant on a party and party scale, including reasonable disbursements for travel and accommodation except Worcester correspondent costs.
Judges
LekhULENI
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Restoration of Possession, Costs Award, Attorney and Client Costs, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Family and Children Mandament Van Spolie Restoration of Possession Costs Award Attorney and Client Costs Party and Party Costs

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P.M

Applicant

R.M

Respondent

G.M.M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination After Return of Vehicle; Argument on Remaining Disputed Items and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to the return of Mont Blanc sunglasses and R3 750 cash allegedly in the vehicle at the time of dispossession.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents should be ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale and for disbursements incurred for travel and accommodation.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide admissible evidence under oath that the Mont Blanc sunglasses and R3 750 cash were in the vehicle at the time of dispossession. The respondents' denial of possession of these items was not implausible or far-fetched, and the purported concession in settlement correspondence was privileged and inadmissible. The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify attorney and client costs, as the respondents' conduct was not objectionable. However, the applicant was justified in employing her Durban attorney and is entitled to party and party costs, including reasonable disbursements for travel and accommodation, except for the costs of the Worcester...

Court Disposition

Application for the return of Mont Blanc sunglasses and R3 750 cash dismissed; costs awarded to applicant on a party and party scale, including reasonable disbursements for travel and accommodation except Worcester correspondent costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for the return of the Mont Blanc sunglasses and the cash amount in the sum of R3 750 is dismissed.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the applicant's costs on a party and party scale as taxed or agreed, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.