Pine Glow Investments (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Energy and Others (3525/2020) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 5 (22 January 2021)

Parties

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether Rule 53(4) can be used to amend Part A of the notice of motion in an urgent application.
2. 2 Whether the procedures for amendment under Rule 28 and Rule 53(4) are interchangeable in this context.
3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the Rule 30 and 30A notice and the Part A application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 53(4) is intended for review applications and cannot be used to amend Part A of the notice of motion, which was not a review. The procedures for amendment under Rule 28 and Rule 53(4) are distinct and serve different purposes. The court found no sufficient connection between Part A and Part B to justify a combined amendment under Rule 53(4). The applicant failed to follow the correct procedure for amendment. Regarding costs, the court determined that the respondents were entirely successful in opposing the amendment and should be awarded costs for the Rule 30 and 30A notice. However, since neither party achieved complete success in Part A, no cost order was made...

Court Disposition

Application to amend Part A refused. Costs awarded to third and fourth respondents for Rule 30 and 30A notice. No cost order for Part A application.

Orders

• The Third and Fourth Respondents undertake not to commence with the streaming of petroleum products from Erf 930 Greenvalley Ext 1 Township, Acornhoek, Mpumalanga, up to and until 2 February 2021.
• The Applicant is liable to the Respondents for the costs of the Rule 30 and 30A notice.