Road Accident Fund v Delkoro and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 293; 79368/2018 (2 May 2023)

Road Accident Fund v Delkoro and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 293; 79368/2018 (2 May 2023)

The applicant withdrew the urgent application without obtaining the respondents' consent as required by Rule 41, and failed to properly notify the court, resulting in unnecessary expenditure of time and resources. The court found that the applicant's conduct warranted a punitive costs order to reflect its disapproval. Furthermore, the urgency and nature of the allegations justified the employment of two counsel for the respondent. Accordingly, the applicant was ordered to pay costs on the attorney-and-client scale, inclusive of the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 293
Parties
Applicant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Weldermariam Heboro Delkoro; Respondent: The Sheriff, Pretoria East
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 May 2023
Case Number
79368/2018
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Costs Determination After Withdrawal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application withdrawn; costs awarded against the applicant on an attorney-and-client scale, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Application, Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale, Punitive Costs, Rule 41, Two Counsel Costs
Civil Procedure Withdrawal of Application Costs Award Attorney and Client Scale Punitive Costs Rule 41 Two Counsel 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Applicant

Weldermariam Heboro Delkoro

Respondent

The Sheriff, Pretoria East

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Costs Determination After Withdrawal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the applicant pay costs on an attorney-and-client scale after withdrawing the urgent application without consent?
  2. 2 Are the costs of two counsel justified in the circumstances?
  3. 3 Did the applicant's conduct warrant a punitive costs order?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant withdrew the urgent application without obtaining the respondents' consent as required by Rule 41, and failed to properly notify the court, resulting in unnecessary expenditure of time and resources. The court found that the applicant's conduct warranted a punitive costs order to reflect its disapproval. Furthermore, the urgency and nature of the allegations justified the employment of two counsel for the respondent. Accordingly, the applicant was ordered to pay costs on the attorney-and-client scale, inclusive of the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application withdrawn; costs awarded against the applicant on an attorney-and-client scale, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the application on the scale as between attorney and client, inclusive of the costs of two counsel.