Thompson v South African Broadcasting Corporation (622/98) [2001] ZASCA 7; 2001 (3) SA 746 (SCA) (8 March 2001)

Thompson v South African Broadcasting Corporation (622/98) [2001] ZASCA 7; 2001 (3) SA 746 (SCA) (8 March 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the applicant's request for reconsideration of the costs order was misconceived. The costs order was not provisional, and the applicant failed to challenge the trial court's factual findings regarding his dishonesty in his heads of argument. The appellate court was justified in assuming acceptance of those findings. The power to reconsider or amend a judgment is limited to correcting errors in expression, not altering the substance of the judgment. The discretion exercised by the trial judge regarding costs was proper, and the appellate court, in upholding the appeal, was entitled to make any order the trial judge could have made. The application for...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 7
Parties
Applicant: Desmond James Thompson; Respondent: South African Broadcasting Corporation
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2001
Case Number
622/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Reconsideration of Costs Order
Outcome
Application for reconsideration of costs order dismissed with costs.
Judges
Grosskopf JA, Harms JA, Olivier JA, Zulman JA, Mthiyane AJA
Legal Topics
Costs Order, Reconsideration of Judgment, Discretion of Trial Court
Civil Procedure Costs Order Reconsideration of Judgment Discretion of Trial Court

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Desmond James Thompson

Applicant

South African Broadcasting Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Reconsideration of Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal may reconsider a costs order where costs were not argued during the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the costs order amended based on alleged incorrect factual findings.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court's discretion regarding costs was properly exercised.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the applicant's request for reconsideration of the costs order was misconceived. The costs order was not provisional, and the applicant failed to challenge the trial court's factual findings regarding his dishonesty in his heads of argument. The appellate court was justified in assuming acceptance of those findings. The power to reconsider or amend a judgment is limited to correcting errors in expression, not altering the substance of the judgment. The discretion exercised by the trial judge regarding costs was proper, and the appellate court, in upholding the appeal, was entitled to make any order the trial judge could have made. The application for...

Court Disposition

Application for reconsideration of costs order dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The employment of two counsel by the respondent for the limited purpose of preparing argument on costs was not reasonably necessary.