Sarpong v Santam Insurance Limited and Others (182/08) [2008] ZAECHC 152 (28 August 2008)

Sarpong v Santam Insurance Limited and Others (182/08) [2008] ZAECHC 152 (28 August 2008)

The court found that the first respondent failed to file any opposing papers and that there was no justification before the court to deny the applicant her costs. The prior correspondence between attorneys did not form part of the record and was not determinative. The court exercised its discretion to award costs against the first respondent but found no proper basis for a punitive costs order. The second respondent settled with the applicant, and each party was to pay its own costs in respect of that respondent.

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 152
Parties
Applicant: Ncikazi Rosebella Sarpong; Respondent: Santam Insurance Limited; Respondent: Radue Wiers Holdings Limited; Respondent: Mampondo Cash and Carry CC
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2008
Case Number
182/08
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal and Partial Settlement
Outcome
Costs awarded against the first respondent; no punitive costs order granted.
Judges
Chetty
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Insurance Claims, Garnishee Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Costs Award Insurance Claims Garnishee Orders

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ncikazi Rosebella Sarpong

Applicant

Santam Insurance Limited

Respondent

Radue Wiers Holdings Limited

Respondent

Mampondo Cash and Carry CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal and Partial Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which party is liable for the costs of the application.
  2. 2 Whether a punitive costs order is justified against the first respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the prior correspondence between attorneys affects the costs outcome.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent failed to file any opposing papers and that there was no justification before the court to deny the applicant her costs. The prior correspondence between attorneys did not form part of the record and was not determinative. The court exercised its discretion to award costs against the first respondent but found no proper basis for a punitive costs order. The second respondent settled with the applicant, and each party was to pay its own costs in respect of that respondent.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded against the first respondent; no punitive costs order granted.

Orders

  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs.
  • Each party shall pay its own costs between the applicant and the second respondent as per the settlement agreement.