Select A Box CC v Koekemoer and Another (J289/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 484 (13 October 2016)

Select A Box CC v Koekemoer and Another (J289/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 484 (13 October 2016)

The court found that the applicant was made aware of the citation error before the answering affidavit but failed to act, resulting in unnecessary costs for the respondents. The respondents had tendered substantially the same relief as was ultimately granted, and the applicant's refusal to accept the tender led to further litigation. The requirements of law and fairness dictated that the applicant should bear the costs of both the main and interlocutory applications. The court rejected the respondents' request for punitive costs, finding that while the applicant's conduct was open to criticism, it did not rise to the level of frivolous or vexatious litigation.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 484
Parties
Applicant: Select-A-Box CC; Respondent: Marius Koekemoer; Respondent: Binderbox (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 October 2016
Case Number
J289/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Agreed Order
Outcome
Costs awarded against the applicant for both the main and interlocutory applications; no punitive costs order granted.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Costs Award, Confidential Information, Interlocutory Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade Costs Award Confidential Information Interlocutory Application

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Select-A-Box CC

Applicant

Marius Koekemoer

Respondent

Binderbox (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Agreed Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should pay the costs of the main application and the interlocutory application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are entitled to costs on a punitive scale.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct justified a departure from the ordinary costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was made aware of the citation error before the answering affidavit but failed to act, resulting in unnecessary costs for the respondents. The respondents had tendered substantially the same relief as was ultimately granted, and the applicant's refusal to accept the tender led to further litigation. The requirements of law and fairness dictated that the applicant should bear the costs of both the main and interlocutory applications. The court rejected the respondents' request for punitive costs, finding that while the applicant's conduct was open to criticism, it did not rise to the level of frivolous or vexatious litigation.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded against the applicant for both the main and interlocutory applications; no punitive costs order granted.

Orders

  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the interlocutory application.