Truvelo Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd v Rojean and Others (59301/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 229 (24 April 2015)
The court found that the applicant was compelled to launch the urgent application because the respondents refused to provide undertakings prior to litigation. The respondents only gave undertakings after the application was launched, which were incorporated into a court order. The applicant was therefore successful...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPPHC 229
- Parties
- Applicant: Truvelo Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Rojean Hattingh; Respondent: Rodney Hattingh; Respondent: Morkel & Krause Rifle Makers Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 59301/2014
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Undertakings and Order
- Outcome
- Application for costs granted in favour of the applicant.
- Judges
- C Pretorius
- Legal Topics
- Restraint of Trade, Costs Award, Undertakings in Court, Urgent Interdict
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Truvelo Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Rojean Hattingh
Respondent
Rodney Hattingh
Respondent
Morkel & Krause Rifle Makers Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Undertakings and Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents' undertakings amounted to success for the applicant.
- 2 Which party should bear the costs of the urgent application and subsequent proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was compelled to launch the urgent application because the respondents refused to provide undertakings prior to litigation. The respondents only gave undertakings after the application was launched, which were incorporated into a court order. The applicant was therefore successful in obtaining the relief sought. In line with the general principle that costs follow the outcome, and in the absence of persuasive reasons from the respondents to depart from this rule, the court ordered the respondents to pay the costs of 2 October 2014 and the present application.
Court Disposition
Application for costs granted in favour of the applicant.
Orders
- The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of 2 October 2014.
- The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case number: 59301/2014
Date: 24/04/2015
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
In the matter between:
TRUVELO MANUFACTURERS (PTY) LTD.........................................................................APPLICANT
And
ROJEAN HATTINGH.....................................................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
RODNEY HATTINGH.....................................................................................................2nd RESPONDENT
MORKEL & KRAUSE RIFLE MAKERS
JOHANNESBURG (PTY) LTD.......................................................................................3rd RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
PRETORIUS J.
[1] An urgent application was launched due to the respondents contravening a restraint of trade agreement. On 30 September 2014 the matter was postponed to 24 October 2014. On 24 October 2014 the respondents gave comprehensive undertakings which were incorporated into the court order by agreement and costs were reserved.
[2] This court heard the costs argument and has to decide which party should pay the costs. It is clear from the merits of the case that the applicant had requested undertakings from the respondents prior to launching the application. The respondents chose not to give such undertakings and therefor the applicant had no choice, but to launch an application to enforce the restraint of trade.
[3] Due to the fact that the applicant was successful in that the respondents gave certain undertakings, costs would normally follow the outcome. The applicant is requesting costs for 2 October 2014, when the undertaking by the respondents was made an order of court, and the costs of the present application.
[4] The respondent, when giving the undertaking, set out: “We confirm that the matter as to costs of the present litigation be reserved ”
[5] I have considered all the arguments, read the papers and am not persuaded by the respondents that costs should not follow the outcome. The applicant conceded that it will only be asking costs for 2 October 2014 and the present application.
[6] Therefor I make the following order:
1. The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of 2 October 2014;
2. The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application.
Judge C Pretorius
Application heard on: 14 April 2015
For the Applicant: Adv. AA BOTHA
Instructed by: DE BEER JANSE VAN VUUREN INC
For the Respondent: Adv. AJ SWANEPOEL
Instructed by: VOGEL INCORPORATED
Date of Judgment: 24 April 2015