True Motives 44 (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (2022/22065, 22023/101121) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1037 (14 October 2024)

True Motives 44 (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (2022/22065, 22023/101121) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1037 (14 October 2024)

The respondent is liable for the costs of ground two of its withdrawn exception, as the applicant's amendments did not address this ground and the respondent failed to withdraw it timeously. The respondent's conduct in repeatedly breaching undertakings, delaying the passing of account credit, and failing to engage...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1037
Parties
Applicant: True Motives 44 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 October 2024
Case Number
2022/22065, 2023/101121
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Exception and Passing of Account Credit
Outcome
The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on an attorney-client scale for ground two of the withdrawn exception, the urgent application, and the hearing before the court.
Judges
AMM
Legal Topics
Municipal Service Disputes, Interim Interdict, Costs Award, Attorney Client Costs, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Land and Property Municipal Service Disputes Interim Interdict Costs Award Attorney Client Costs Exception Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

True Motives 44 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Exception and Passing of Account Credit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is liable for the costs of its withdrawn exception, specifically ground two.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is liable for the costs of the applicant's urgent interdict application.
  3. 3 Whether punitive attorney-client costs orders are warranted against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent is liable for the costs of ground two of its withdrawn exception, as the applicant's amendments did not address this ground and the respondent failed to withdraw it timeously. The respondent's conduct in repeatedly breaching undertakings, delaying the passing of account credit, and failing to engage constructively in settlement processes compelled the applicant to bring the urgent application. The respondent's actions, both in and out of litigation, were insouciant, vexatious, and reckless, justifying punitive attorney-client costs orders. The applicant should not be out of pocket due to the respondent's misconduct. The court exercises its discretion to award costs on an...

Court Disposition

The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on an attorney-client scale for ground two of the withdrawn exception, the urgent application, and the hearing before the court.

Orders

  • The respondent is liable for and ordered to pay the costs of the respondent's exception under case no. 2022/22065, except for those costs relating to the first and third grounds of exception.
  • Such costs order shall be on the scale as between attorney and client and shall include the costs of the applicant's representative appearing as an attorney with rights of appearance in the Superior Court.