Ranta and Others v Ranta (93454/2015) [2022] ZAGPPHC 498 (7 July 2022)

Ranta and Others v Ranta (93454/2015) [2022] ZAGPPHC 498 (7 July 2022)

The court found that the respondent's failure to cooperate and deliver the required heads of argument and practice note resulted in the applicants incurring wasted costs by having to brief counsel and attend court. The matter was properly enrolled, and there was no justification to reserve the issue of costs or burden another court with its determination. The respondent was responsible for the removal, and the applicants were prejudiced by her conduct. Therefore, the respondent was ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the removal from the roll.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 498
Parties
Applicant: Zacharia Ditshego Ranta; Applicant: Zacharia Ditshego Ranta N.O.; Applicant: Themane Jeremiah Tibane N.O.; Applicant: Doreen Ntebeng Ranta N.O.; Respondent: Tshegofatso Ranta (nee Maringa)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 July 2022
Case Number
93454/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Unopposed Motion Roll; Removal From Roll Due to Opposition; Costs Dispute
Outcome
Application removed from the roll; respondent ordered to pay wasted costs occasioned by the removal.
Judges
Ndlokovane
Legal Topics
Costs Order, Removal From Roll, Practice Directives, Unopposed Motion, Application to Compel
Civil Procedure Costs Order Removal From Roll Practice Directives Unopposed Motion Application to Compel

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zacharia Ditshego Ranta

Applicant

Zacharia Ditshego Ranta N.O.

Applicant

Themane Jeremiah Tibane N.O.

Applicant

Doreen Ntebeng Ranta N.O.

Applicant

Tshegofatso Ranta (nee Maringa)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Unopposed Motion Roll; Removal From Roll Due to Opposition; Costs Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the respondent be ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the removal of the matter from the roll?
  2. 2 Is it appropriate to reserve the issue of costs for later determination or to decide it immediately upon removal?
  3. 3 Did the conduct of the respondent justify a costs order against her?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's failure to cooperate and deliver the required heads of argument and practice note resulted in the applicants incurring wasted costs by having to brief counsel and attend court. The matter was properly enrolled, and there was no justification to reserve the issue of costs or burden another court with its determination. The respondent was responsible for the removal, and the applicants were prejudiced by her conduct. Therefore, the respondent was ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the removal from the roll.

Court Disposition

Application removed from the roll; respondent ordered to pay wasted costs occasioned by the removal.

Orders

  • The matter is removed from the roll.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the removal.