Senatla Trading Enterprise 26 CC v Bloem Water and Another (779/2011) [2012] ZAFSHC 247 (20 December 2012)

Senatla Trading Enterprise 26 CC v Bloem Water and Another (779/2011) [2012] ZAFSHC 247 (20 December 2012)

The court found that although the respondents' failure to make payment was not wilful, the applicant was forced to incur costs in approaching the court due to the respondents' mistaken belief regarding the return day. The application was withdrawn after compliance, but the applicant was entitled to costs as the proceedings were necessary to secure enforcement of the court order. The absence of a replying affidavit meant the respondents' explanations were not disputed. The court exercised its discretion to award costs to the applicant, including previously reserved costs.

Citation
[2012] ZAFSHC 247
Parties
Applicant: Senatla Trading Enterprise 26 CC; Respondent: Bloem Water; Respondent: Ben Malakoane
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 December 2012
Case Number
779/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Contempt Application
Outcome
Costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
F. W. A. Danzfuss
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Costs Award, Enforcement of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Costs Award Enforcement of Court Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Senatla Trading Enterprise 26 CC

Applicant

Bloem Water

Respondent

Ben Malakoane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a costs order after withdrawal of the contempt application due to compliance with the court order.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' failure to make payment was wilful or bona fide.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on an attorney and client scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the respondents' failure to make payment was not wilful, the applicant was forced to incur costs in approaching the court due to the respondents' mistaken belief regarding the return day. The application was withdrawn after compliance, but the applicant was entitled to costs as the proceedings were necessary to secure enforcement of the court order. The absence of a replying affidavit meant the respondents' explanations were not disputed. The court exercised its discretion to award costs to the applicant, including previously reserved costs.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application, including the costs of 17 February 2011 and 24 March 2011, which were previously reserved.