North-West Star (Pty) Ltd t/a Tlhabane Bus Service and Others v Sefora (104/2001) [2002] ZANWHC 32 (5 September 2002)

North-West Star (Pty) Ltd t/a Tlhabane Bus Service and Others v Sefora (104/2001) [2002] ZANWHC 32 (5 September 2002)

The court found that the costs order made against the applicants jointly was a patent error and ambiguous, as the second and third applicants were acting in their representative capacity as judicial managers of the first applicant. The true intention was that costs should be paid from the resources of the company under judicial management, not personally by the judicial managers. The court held that this error could be remedied by application under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, rather than by appeal. The applicants abandoned most of their grounds for appeal, and the remaining grounds had already been addressed or did not provide reasonable prospects of success....

Citation
[2002] ZANWHC 32
Parties
Applicant: North-West Star (Pty) Ltd t/a Tlhabane Bus Service (under Judicial Manager); Applicant: John Louis Carter Fourie N O; Applicant: Jayant Daji Pema N O; Respondent: Peter Banty Sefora
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2002
Case Number
104/2001
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Full Bench
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
M M Leeuw
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Joint and Several Liability, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Management
Civil Procedure Costs Award Joint and Several Liability Leave to Appeal Judicial Management

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North-West Star (Pty) Ltd t/a Tlhabane Bus Service (under Judicial Manager)

Applicant

John Louis Carter Fourie N O

Applicant

Jayant Daji Pema N O

Applicant

Peter Banty Sefora

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Full Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order against the applicants jointly was appropriate given their representative capacity.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be remedied by appeal or by application under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the costs order made against the applicants jointly was a patent error and ambiguous, as the second and third applicants were acting in their representative capacity as judicial managers of the first applicant. The true intention was that costs should be paid from the resources of the company under judicial management, not personally by the judicial managers. The court held that this error could be remedied by application under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, rather than by appeal. The applicants abandoned most of their grounds for appeal, and the remaining grounds had already been addressed or did not provide reasonable prospects of success....

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicants are urged to approach the Registrar to have the costs order varied if the appeal is not proceeded with.