Pypers and Others v Odendaal & Summerton Inc (A733/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 221 (19 July 2013)

Pypers and Others v Odendaal & Summerton Inc (A733/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 221 (19 July 2013)

The court found that the respondents were justified in bringing the application to declare the appeal invalid before a single judge, as the appeal had lapsed due to non-compliance with security for costs and procedural rules. The application dealt solely with procedural aspects and did not require consideration of the merits or prospects of success. The subsequent application to strike the appeal off the roll was also warranted, given the appellants’ continued non-compliance and the imminent appeal hearing. The court held that both applications were necessary and that the respondents were entitled to costs, including those of senior counsel, on an attorney and client scale due to the...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 221
Parties
Appellant: Cornelius Gregorius Pypers; Appellant: Freedom Front Plus; Appellant: Jacobus Johannes Hoffman; Respondent: Odendaal & Summerton Inc; Respondent: Adriaan Izak Odendaal
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2013
Case Number
A733/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Appeal
Outcome
Costs awarded in favour of the respondents for both applications and the appeal, including costs of senior counsel and on an attorney and client scale where appropriate.
Judges
MJ Teffo, J Baloyi
Legal Topics
Costs Awards, Withdrawal of Appeal, Security for Costs, Striking Out Defence
Civil Procedure Costs Awards Withdrawal of Appeal Security for Costs Striking Out Defence

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornelius Gregorius Pypers

Appellant

Freedom Front Plus

Appellant

Jacobus Johannes Hoffman

Appellant

Odendaal & Summerton Inc

Respondent

Adriaan Izak Odendaal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to the costs of two applications filed prior to the appeal hearing after the appeal was withdrawn.
  2. 2 Whether it was proper for the respondents to bring the application before a single judge rather than wait for the appeal hearing.
  3. 3 Whether the costs should include those of senior counsel and be awarded on an attorney and client scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents were justified in bringing the application to declare the appeal invalid before a single judge, as the appeal had lapsed due to non-compliance with security for costs and procedural rules. The application dealt solely with procedural aspects and did not require consideration of the merits or prospects of success. The subsequent application to strike the appeal off the roll was also warranted, given the appellants’ continued non-compliance and the imminent appeal hearing. The court held that both applications were necessary and that the respondents were entitled to costs, including those of senior counsel, on an attorney and client scale due to the...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded in favour of the respondents for both applications and the appeal, including costs of senior counsel and on an attorney and client scale where appropriate.

Orders

  • The first, second and third appellants must pay the costs of the appeal on the scale as between party and party, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved. Such costs shall include the costs of one junior counsel.
  • The first, second and third appellants must pay the costs of the respondents’ application to strike out the appeal on the scale as between attorney and client, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.