SecureBT (Pty) Ltd v Norris and Another (21699/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1037 (15 September 2023)

SecureBT (Pty) Ltd v Norris and Another (21699/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1037 (15 September 2023)

The court found that the reserved costs from Part A of the main application were not adjudicated in the Part B order, and the omission was due to oversight rather than a deliberate exclusion. The court held that it was not functus officio regarding the reserved costs, as costs were never argued and the order reserving costs remained unaffected. Even if functus officio applied, Rule 42(1)(b) and common law exceptions permit variation of the order to correct the omission. The court clarified that the costs order in Part B was ambiguous and could be interpreted to include the entire application, but the Taxing Master required a specific order to unreserve the costs. The application to vary...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1037
Parties
Applicant: SecureBT (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Quinton Norris; Respondent: Unity Technology Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2023
Case Number
21699/2021
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Opposed Application for Variation of Costs Order Under Rule 42(1)(b) and Common Law
Outcome
The application to vary the costs order is granted in part; the reserved costs from Part A are unreserved and included in the costs order against the first respondent. The application for costs against the second respondent in respect of Part A is refused. Costs of the variation application are awarded against both...
Judges
Strydom
Legal Topics
Variation of Court Orders, Reserved Costs, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Functus Officio, Costs Taxation
Civil Procedure Variation of Court Orders Reserved Costs Rule 42 Uniform Rules Functus Officio Costs Taxation

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SecureBT (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Quinton Norris

Respondent

Unity Technology Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Opposed Application for Variation of Costs Order Under Rule 42(1)(b) and Common Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court is functus officio regarding the reserved costs from Part A of the main application.
  2. 2 Whether the costs order in Part B can be varied to include the reserved costs of Part A.
  3. 3 Whether costs can be awarded against the second respondent who did not oppose the main application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the reserved costs from Part A of the main application were not adjudicated in the Part B order, and the omission was due to oversight rather than a deliberate exclusion. The court held that it was not functus officio regarding the reserved costs, as costs were never argued and the order reserving costs remained unaffected. Even if functus officio applied, Rule 42(1)(b) and common law exceptions permit variation of the order to correct the omission. The court clarified that the costs order in Part B was ambiguous and could be interpreted to include the entire application, but the Taxing Master required a specific order to unreserve the costs. The application to vary...

Court Disposition

The application to vary the costs order is granted in part; the reserved costs from Part A are unreserved and included in the costs order against the first respondent. The application for costs against the second respondent in respect of Part A is refused. Costs of the variation application are awarded against both...

Orders

  • Prayer 6 of the order of 31 August 2021 is varied to read: 'The first respondent to pay the costs of this application, which costs include the costs reserved on 4 May 2021.'
  • The applicant is granted leave to present its bill of costs pertaining to Part A of the application afresh via Notice of Taxation to the respondents, to be taxed by the Taxing Master of this court.