Segwit Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Kwality Group Africa (Pty) Ltd (2022/021132) [2024] ZAGPPHC 768 (30 July 2024)

Segwit Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Kwality Group Africa (Pty) Ltd (2022/021132) [2024] ZAGPPHC 768 (30 July 2024)

The court found that the Rule 34(1) tender, made without a tender for costs and paid without acceptance by the applicant, did not constitute a compromise settling the matter, including costs. The applicant's immediate communication that costs remained in dispute and attempt to resolve the issue demonstrated reasonable conduct. The respondent's actions—making a late tender and payment without acceptance, failing to respond to correspondence, and attempting to avoid costs—were not bona fide and amounted to an abuse of process. The court exercised its discretion to penalize such conduct by awarding costs on an attorney and client scale, including reserved costs and the cost of counsel on...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 768
Parties
Applicant: Segwit Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Kwality Group Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 July 2024
Case Number
2022/021132
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Return Date Following Provisional Order; Costs Only in Dispute
Outcome
The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including reserved costs, on a scale as between attorney and client, including the cost of counsel on Scale B.
Judges
Van der Merwe
Legal Topics
Notarial Bond Perfection, Rule 34 Tender, Costs Award, Settlement Offer, Loan Agreement
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Notarial Bond Perfection Rule 34 Tender Costs Award Settlement Offer Loan Agreement

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Segwit Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Kwality Group Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Return Date Following Provisional Order; Costs Only in Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs following payment of the principal debt by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's Rule 34(1) tender and payment constituted a compromise settling the matter, including costs.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's retention of the tendered amount without repayment amounts to acceptance of the settlement offer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Rule 34(1) tender, made without a tender for costs and paid without acceptance by the applicant, did not constitute a compromise settling the matter, including costs. The applicant's immediate communication that costs remained in dispute and attempt to resolve the issue demonstrated reasonable conduct. The respondent's actions—making a late tender and payment without acceptance, failing to respond to correspondence, and attempting to avoid costs—were not bona fide and amounted to an abuse of process. The court exercised its discretion to penalize such conduct by awarding costs on an attorney and client scale, including reserved costs and the cost of counsel on...

Court Disposition

The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including reserved costs, on a scale as between attorney and client, including the cost of counsel on Scale B.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application including the costs reserved on 6 September 2022 on a scale as between attorney and client, including the cost of counsel on Scale B.