Sehlabaka v Road Accident Fund (4820/2008) [2010] ZAFSHC 130 (30 September 2010)

Sehlabaka v Road Accident Fund (4820/2008) [2010] ZAFSHC 130 (30 September 2010)

The court found that the respondent's letter dated 13 September 2010 did not amount to a clear and unequivocal tender for wasted costs as required by Rule 34(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The phrase 'will tender' expressed only an intention or desire to make a tender, not an actual, actionable offer. The respondent's attorneys failed to carry out their client's instructions to make a formal tender, instead engaging in unnecessary correspondence and argumentation that protracted the litigation and increased costs. The court held that the applicant was entitled to launch the application to compel, and that the respondent should bear the wasted costs up to 13 September 2010. The...

Citation
[2010] ZAFSHC 130
Parties
Applicant: Mr Thibile Elvis Sehlabaka; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2010
Case Number
4820/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Order Following Application to Compel Particulars
Outcome
Costs order granted against the respondent and its instructing attorney as specified.
Judges
K.J. Moloi
Legal Topics
Costs Order, Application to Compel, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 21, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 34, Wasted Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Order Application to Compel Uniform Rules of Court Rule 21 Uniform Rules of Court Rule 34 Wasted 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Thibile Elvis Sehlabaka

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Order Following Application to Compel Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent made a clear and unequivocal tender for wasted costs as required by the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent or its instructing attorney should be liable for costs incurred after the purported tender.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the respondent's attorneys justified a punitive costs order de bonis propriis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's letter dated 13 September 2010 did not amount to a clear and unequivocal tender for wasted costs as required by Rule 34(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The phrase 'will tender' expressed only an intention or desire to make a tender, not an actual, actionable offer. The respondent's attorneys failed to carry out their client's instructions to make a formal tender, instead engaging in unnecessary correspondence and argumentation that protracted the litigation and increased costs. The court held that the applicant was entitled to launch the application to compel, and that the respondent should bear the wasted costs up to 13 September 2010. The...

Court Disposition

Costs order granted against the respondent and its instructing attorney as specified.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the wasted costs of the application up to and including 13 September 2010.
  • The respondent's instructing attorney is ordered to pay the costs of the application from 14 September up to and including 23 September 2010 de bonis propriis.