SVA Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Mucabel and Others (JR 1935/2020) [2023] ZALCJHB 68 (14 March 2023)

SVA Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Mucabel and Others (JR 1935/2020) [2023] ZALCJHB 68 (14 March 2023)

The court found that although the applicant's attorneys made serious errors in the conduct of the review application, there was no evidence of mala fides or intentional misconduct. The error was due to oversight and lack of proper supervision, which was acknowledged and apologised for by Mr Lee. Since the parties had entered into a full and final settlement agreement regarding the costs, with the applicant tendering to pay the respondent's wasted costs, the court declined to confirm the provisional punitive cost order de bonis propriis. The costs are to be paid in accordance with the settlement agreement.

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 68
Parties
Applicant: SVA Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bongani Simon Mucabel; Respondent: Xolani Nyamezele N.O; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2023
Case Number
JR 1935/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
The provisional cost order de bonis propriis is not confirmed. Costs are to be paid in accordance with the settlement agreement between the parties.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Costs De Bonis Propriis, Settlement Agreement, Wasted Costs
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Costs De Bonis Propriis Settlement Agreement Wasted 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SVA Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Bongani Simon Mucabel

Respondent

Xolani Nyamezele N.O

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a punitive cost order de bonis propriis should be confirmed against the applicant's attorneys.
  2. 2 Whether the costs should be paid in accordance with the settlement agreement between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant's attorneys made serious errors in the conduct of the review application, there was no evidence of mala fides or intentional misconduct. The error was due to oversight and lack of proper supervision, which was acknowledged and apologised for by Mr Lee. Since the parties had entered into a full and final settlement agreement regarding the costs, with the applicant tendering to pay the respondent's wasted costs, the court declined to confirm the provisional punitive cost order de bonis propriis. The costs are to be paid in accordance with the settlement agreement.

Court Disposition

The provisional cost order de bonis propriis is not confirmed. Costs are to be paid in accordance with the settlement agreement between the parties.

Orders

  • The cost order in paragraph 2 of the order of 17 February 2023 is not confirmed.
  • The cost of the application is to be paid in accordance with the settlement agreement concluded between the parties.