Serebolo v Paton and Another (79/02) [2003] ZANCHC 37 (20 June 2003)

Serebolo v Paton and Another (79/02) [2003] ZANCHC 37 (20 June 2003)

The applicant's application was ill-conceived and ill-prepared, with no reasonable prospects of success. He persisted with claims that had previously been dismissed and failed to disclose material facts, despite being aware of serious disputes of fact. The applicant had alternative remedies available and had abandoned certain claims in writing, yet continued to pursue them. The respondents were justified in seeking security for costs and should not be left out of pocket due to the applicant's conduct. The court exercised its discretion to award costs on the attorney and client scale for the main application and granted costs for the security for costs application.

Citation
[2003] ZANCHC 37
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Serebolo; Respondent: Theophilus Cecil Paton; Respondent: Klipdrift Housing CC
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2003
Case Number
79/02
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Costs After Withdrawal of Main Application
Outcome
Application withdrawn by the applicant. Costs awarded against the applicant on an attorney and client scale for the main application and for the application for security for costs.
Judges
Majiedt
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale, Specific Performance, Oral Agreement, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Land and Property Costs Award Attorney and Client Scale Specific Performance Oral Agreement Security for 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Serebolo

Applicant

Theophilus Cecil Paton

Respondent

Klipdrift Housing CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Costs After Withdrawal of Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the respondents' costs on an attorney and client scale after withdrawing the application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be liable for the costs of the respondents' application for security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's application was ill-conceived and ill-prepared, with no reasonable prospects of success. He persisted with claims that had previously been dismissed and failed to disclose material facts, despite being aware of serious disputes of fact. The applicant had alternative remedies available and had abandoned certain claims in writing, yet continued to pursue them. The respondents were justified in seeking security for costs and should not be left out of pocket due to the applicant's conduct. The court exercised its discretion to award costs on the attorney and client scale for the main application and granted costs for the security for costs application.

Court Disposition

Application withdrawn by the applicant. Costs awarded against the applicant on an attorney and client scale for the main application and for the application for security for costs.

Orders

  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs in the main application on a scale as between attorney and client.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs in the application for security for costs.