Skole-Ondersteuningsten Sentrum NPC and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others (24258/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 639 (23 October 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] ZAGPPHC 639
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Fabricius
- Case number
- 24258/2020
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Fabricius
- Case number
- 24258/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 IncBronkieland Kleuterskool
Applicant Counsel: Hurter & Spies IncSolidarity
Applicant Counsel: Hurter & Spies IncMinister of Social Development
Respondent Counsel: State AttorneyMinister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs
Respondent Counsel: State AttorneyMinister of Basic Education
Respondent Counsel: State Attorney03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application / Post Judgment Clarification and Costs Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the original judgment's costs order required clarification regarding the party liable and the scale of costs.
- 02
Whether the reserved costs and costs of two counsel should be included in the costs order.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Order
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
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.