African Bank Limited t/a ab Commerce v Covmark Marketing cc t/a Covmark Marketing and Others (9238/2005, 10785/2005) [2008] ZAKZHC 65; 2008 (6) SA 46 (D); (6 August 2008)

African Bank Limited t/a ab Commerce v Covmark Marketing cc t/a Covmark Marketing and Others (9238/2005, 10785/2005) [2008] ZAKZHC 65; 2008 (6) SA 46 (D); (6 August 2008)

The court found that, although the respondents were successful in the Rule 33(4) separation application, the circumstances of the matter's allocation to the acting judge and the practical exigencies made it inequitable to saddle the applicant with those costs. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs for the first day of hearing, which was devoted to the separation application. For the subsequent days, the respondents were substantially successful on the merits, having demonstrated that the applicant could not be a holder in due course of the instruments relied upon. The respondents were therefore entitled to the costs for the remainder of the hearing and for the costs argument. The...

Citation
[2008] ZAKZHC 65
Parties
Applicant: African Bank Limited t/a AB Commerce; Respondent: Covmark Marketing CC t/a Covmark Marketing; Respondent: Vishnuduth Soodhoo; Respondent: Roshina Soodhoo; Respondent: Lovis Sales CC; Respondent: Covenent Marketing CC
Court
High Courts - Kwazulu Natal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 August 2008
Case Number
9238/2005, 10785/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Costs apportioned: each party to bear its own costs for the hearing on 23 April 2007; applicant to pay respondents' costs for hearings on 24, 25, and 26 April 2007 and for the costs argument on 30 July 2008.
Judges
Moosa AJ
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Rule 33 4 Separation, Holder in Due Course, Allocation of Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Costs Award Rule 33 4 Separation Holder in Due Course Allocation of 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

African Bank Limited t/a AB Commerce

Applicant

Covmark Marketing CC t/a Covmark Marketing

Respondent

Vishnuduth Soodhoo

Respondent

Roshina Soodhoo

Respondent

Lovis Sales CC

Respondent

Covenent Marketing CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should costs of the Rule 33(4) separation application be awarded, and to whom.
  2. 2 Are the respondents entitled to costs for the hearing on the merits.
  3. 3 Should costs be reserved for the court hearing oral evidence or determined now.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the respondents were successful in the Rule 33(4) separation application, the circumstances of the matter's allocation to the acting judge and the practical exigencies made it inequitable to saddle the applicant with those costs. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs for the first day of hearing, which was devoted to the separation application. For the subsequent days, the respondents were substantially successful on the merits, having demonstrated that the applicant could not be a holder in due course of the instruments relied upon. The respondents were therefore entitled to the costs for the remainder of the hearing and for the costs argument. The...

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned: each party to bear its own costs for the hearing on 23 April 2007; applicant to pay respondents' costs for hearings on 24, 25, and 26 April 2007 and for the costs argument on 30 July 2008.

Orders

  • Each party to bear its own costs for the hearing on 23 April 2007.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the respondents' costs occasioned by the hearings on 24, 25, and 26 April 2007.