Sportscene Mthatha v Myataza (CA121/2024) [2025] ZAECMHC 38 (20 May 2025)

Sportscene Mthatha v Myataza (CA121/2024) [2025] ZAECMHC 38 (20 May 2025)

The court found that the appellant's attorneys failed in their duty to properly prepare the appeal record, resulting in wasted judicial time and the postponement of the appeal. The attorney's personal circumstances, while deserving of sympathy, did not excuse the lack of action to remedy the record or to delegate responsibility within the firm. The deficiencies in the record were known to both attorney and counsel, yet neither took adequate steps to alert the court or opposing counsel, nor did they reflect the issues in the heads of argument or practice note. The appellant itself was not at fault and should not bear the wasted costs. The court expressed its displeasure at the conduct of...

Citation
[2025] ZAECMHC 38
Parties
Appellant: Sportscene Mthatha; Respondent: Nondumiso Myataza
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2025
Case Number
CA121/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal; Costs Determination Following Postponement Due to Inadequate Record
Outcome
Appellant's attorneys ordered to pay wasted costs de bonis propriis, including respondent's wasted costs; partial fee forfeiture for both appellant's and respondent's counsel and attorneys as specified.
Judges
M.J. Lowe, M.S. Jolwana, P. Zilwa
Legal Topics
Costs De Bonis Propriis, Attorney Negligence, Appeal Record Preparation, Fees Forfeiture
Civil Procedure Costs De Bonis Propriis Attorney Negligence Appeal Record Preparation Fees Forfeiture

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sportscene Mthatha

Appellant

Nondumiso Myataza

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal; Costs Determination Following Postponement Due to Inadequate Record

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's attorneys and counsel should be ordered to pay wasted costs de bonis propriis due to inadequate preparation of the appeal record.
  2. 2 Whether any legal practitioner should be deprived of their fee for wasted costs in the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant itself should bear responsibility for wasted costs arising from its legal team's conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's attorneys failed in their duty to properly prepare the appeal record, resulting in wasted judicial time and the postponement of the appeal. The attorney's personal circumstances, while deserving of sympathy, did not excuse the lack of action to remedy the record or to delegate responsibility within the firm. The deficiencies in the record were known to both attorney and counsel, yet neither took adequate steps to alert the court or opposing counsel, nor did they reflect the issues in the heads of argument or practice note. The appellant itself was not at fault and should not bear the wasted costs. The court expressed its displeasure at the conduct of...

Court Disposition

Appellant's attorneys ordered to pay wasted costs de bonis propriis, including respondent's wasted costs; partial fee forfeiture for both appellant's and respondent's counsel and attorneys as specified.

Orders

  • Appellant’s attorneys are to pay the costs wasted in this matter, on a de bonis propriis basis including respondent’s wasted costs and such as to also include those costs referred to in paragraph 62 above.
  • Appellant’s counsel’s fee is disallowed as follows: the fee charged in respect of the preparation of the practice note, two thirds of counsel’s preparation fee relevant to the appeal hearing, two thirds of the appearance fee, and the costs and disbursements relevant to counsel’s travelling and accommodation.