Download PDF

South Africa Order

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Skole-Ondersteuningsten Sentrum NPC and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others (24258/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 639 (23 October 2020)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court clarified that the costs order in the original judgment was always intended to be against the first respondent, including the reserved costs and the costs of two counsel. As no submissions were received from any party after being given an opportunity, the court confirmed and supplemented its original order to ensure clarity and proper execution. The first respondent is ordered to pay the applicants' and amicus curiae's costs on an attorney and client scale, including the reserved costs and costs of two counsel.

Court disposition

Order granted clarifying and supplementing the original judgment regarding costs.

Orders

  • The addition to the original judgment must be read with the judgment delivered on 6 July 2020.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the applicants and the amicus curiae on an attorney and client scale, including the reserved costs and the costs of two counsel.

02

Material facts

Parties

Skole-Ondersteuningsentrum NPC

Applicant Counsel: Hurter & Spies Inc

Bronkieland Kleuterskool

Applicant Counsel: Hurter & Spies Inc

Solidarity

Applicant Counsel: Hurter & Spies Inc

Minister of Social Development

Respondent Counsel: State Attorney

Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Respondent Counsel: State Attorney

Minister of Basic Education

Respondent Counsel: State Attorney

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Application / Post Judgment Clarification and Costs Order

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants requested clarity on the costs order granted in the original judgment, specifically regarding liability for reserved costs and the costs of two counsel.
Respondent
No submissions were received from the respondents despite being given an opportunity to do so.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Common law; see Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro AG 1977 (4) SA 298 (A)

    A court may clarify or supplement its judgment to ensure the operative order reflects its intention, particularly regarding costs.

  2. 02

    Universal City Studios Inc v Network Video (Pty) Ltd 1986 (2) SA 734 (A)

    Costs may be awarded on an attorney and client scale where warranted by the circumstances and conduct of the parties.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court clarified that the costs order in the original judgment was always intended to be against the first respondent, including the reserved costs and the costs of two counsel. As no submissions were received from any party after being given an opportunity, the court confirmed and supplemented its original order to ensure clarity and proper execution. The first respondent is ordered to pay the applicants' and amicus curiae's costs on an attorney and client scale, including the reserved costs and costs of two counsel.

Obiter and limits

  • The absence of submissions from the parties after being invited to do so indicates acceptance of the court's intended clarification.
  • The addition to the original judgment must be read together with the judgment delivered on 6 July 2020 for full effect.

Court disposition

Order granted clarifying and supplementing the original judgment regarding costs.

  • The addition to the original judgment must be read with the judgment delivered on 6 July 2020.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the applicants and the amicus curiae on an attorney and client scale, including the reserved costs and the costs of two counsel.

Source and reliance status

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Order

[2020] ZAGPPHC 639

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO

(2)

OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/NO

(3)

REVISED

23/10/2020

Case No: 24258/2020

In the matter between:

SKOLE-ONDERSTEUNINGSENTRUM

NPC

First Applicant

BRONKIELAND

KLEUTERSKOOL

Second Applicant

SOLIDARITY

Third Applicant

and

MINISTER

OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

First Respondent

MINISTER OF CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE

AND

TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent

MINISTER

OF BASIC EDUCATION

Third Respondent

ADDITION

TO ORIGINAL JUDGMENT

FABRICIUS J

[1] On 6 July 2020 the judgment in the above matter was delivered.

[2] On 30 September 2020 I received a letter from the applicants’ legal representative who requested clarity with regards to my cost order granted on 6 July 2020.

[3] On 1 October 2020 the parties were informed (per electronic mail) that I always intended to grant costs against the first respondent in respect of Mothle J’s order (the reserved costs) and in respect of the costs of 2 counsel.

[4] The parties were given an opportunity to make submissions on or before 16 October 2020. No submissions were received.

[5] I therefore grant the following order:

1. The addition to the original judgment should be read with the judgment delivered on 6 July 2020 (the original judgment) and

2. the first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of applicants and the amicus on an attorney and client scale, which costs include the costs reserved on 23 June 2020 (the reserved costs) and in respect of the costs of 2 counsel.

H

FABRICIUS

JUDGE

OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG

DIVISION

PRETORIA

NO APPEARANCES:

FOR THE APPLICANTS:

HURTER & SPIES INC

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

STATE

ATTORNEY

FOR THE AMICUS CURIAE:

VAN WYK & ASSOCIATES

DATE OF HEARING: NO HEARING

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23 OCTOBER 2020

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro AG 1977 (4) SA 298 (A)

Case cited

Universal City Studios Inc v Network Video (Pty) Ltd 1986 (2) SA 734 (A)

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.