Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Westacre Devco (Pty) Ltd and Others (6900/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 376 (25 August 2011)

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Westacre Devco (Pty) Ltd and Others (6900/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 376 (25 August 2011)

The court found that the applicant was justified in bringing the urgent application due to the respondents' threats to transfer the property without securing the required use rights. The urgency was not self-created, and the respondents did not dispute urgency in the agreed court orders. The main dispute was settled by agreement, with the respondents ultimately complying with the applicant's demands. The applicant was therefore the successful party and entitled to its costs. However, the court declined to award costs on the attorney and client scale, as no breach of contract was judicially established and the applicant did not give the required notice to remedy. The court also refused to...

Citation
[2011] ZAWCHC 376
Parties
Applicant: Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Westacre Devco (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds Cape Town; Respondent: Ploughmann Incorporated
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2011
Case Number
6900/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Costs Following Settlement of Merits
Outcome
Costs awarded to the applicant on the party-and-party scale, including costs of postponements and one counsel.
Judges
Moses
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Specific Performance, Costs Award, Sale of Immovable Property, Attorney and Client Scale, Urgent Application Requirements
Civil Procedure Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Interim Interdict Specific Performance Costs Award Sale of Immovable Property Attorney and Client Scale +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Westacre Devco (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds Cape Town

Respondent

Ploughmann Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Costs Following Settlement of Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a costs order following settlement of the merits.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on the attorney and client scale or party-and-party scale.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's use of two counsel should be reflected in the costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was justified in bringing the urgent application due to the respondents' threats to transfer the property without securing the required use rights. The urgency was not self-created, and the respondents did not dispute urgency in the agreed court orders. The main dispute was settled by agreement, with the respondents ultimately complying with the applicant's demands. The applicant was therefore the successful party and entitled to its costs. However, the court declined to award costs on the attorney and client scale, as no breach of contract was judicially established and the applicant did not give the required notice to remedy. The court also refused to...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the applicant on the party-and-party scale, including costs of postponements and one counsel.

Orders

  • The applicant is awarded the costs of its application, including the costs occasioned by the postponements on 8 April 2010, 23 April 2010 and 20 August 2010.
  • Such costs are to be on the scale as between party and party.