S.A.S v J.M.S (2022/32681) [2025] ZAGPPHC 3 (6 January 2025)

S.A.S v J.M.S (2022/32681) [2025] ZAGPPHC 3 (6 January 2025)

The court found that the respondent, having withdrawn the appeal, is to be treated as an unsuccessful litigant and is liable for the costs of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal. There was no evidence of a compromise between the parties that each would pay their own costs. The correspondence and notices unequivocally reserved the costs to be argued in the main application, and no agreement to the contrary was reached. The argument that the costs issue was res judicata was rejected, as it conflated the main application with the subsequent appeal process. The court exercised its discretion and found no exceptional circumstances or good grounds to deprive the applicant of...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 3
Parties
Applicant: S[...] A[...] S[...]; Respondent: J[...] M[...] S[...]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 January 2025
Case Number
2022/32681
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Appeal Withdrawal; Determination of Costs After Withdrawal of Appeal
Outcome
Application for costs granted in favour of the applicant. Respondent directed to pay costs of the appeal, application for leave to appeal, and costs of this application, all on Scale C.
Judges
EF Dippenaar
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Appeal, Costs Liability, Curator Ad Litem, Rule 41, Minor Children
Civil Procedure Family and Children Withdrawal of Appeal Costs Liability Curator Ad Litem Rule 41 Minor Children

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S[...] A[...] S[...]

Applicant

J[...] M[...] S[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Appeal Withdrawal; Determination of Costs After Withdrawal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is liable for the costs of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal after withdrawing the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there was a compromise between the parties that each would pay their own costs.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs as the respondent is in the position of an unsuccessful litigant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, having withdrawn the appeal, is to be treated as an unsuccessful litigant and is liable for the costs of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal. There was no evidence of a compromise between the parties that each would pay their own costs. The correspondence and notices unequivocally reserved the costs to be argued in the main application, and no agreement to the contrary was reached. The argument that the costs issue was res judicata was rejected, as it conflated the main application with the subsequent appeal process. The court exercised its discretion and found no exceptional circumstances or good grounds to deprive the applicant of...

Court Disposition

Application for costs granted in favour of the applicant. Respondent directed to pay costs of the appeal, application for leave to appeal, and costs of this application, all on Scale C.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to pay the costs of the appeal, including the application for leave to appeal, such costs to be on Scale C.
  • The respondent is directed to pay the costs of this application on Scale C.