Cheetah Chrome South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Dilokong Chrome Mine (Pty) Limited and Others (45259/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 636 (29 October 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] ZAGPPHC 636
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Fabricius
- Case number
- 45259/2020
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Fabricius
- Case number
- 45259/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court reconsidered its provisional costs order after receiving representations from the first respondent. It accepted the respondents' arguments that the applicant should pay the costs occasioned by the amendments, including the costs of two counsel, as these were necessitated by the applicant's actions. The remaining costs, specifically those relating to urgency and section 133 of the Companies Act, were ordered to be costs in the cause of the application, meaning they will be determined at the conclusion of the main application. The previous order was amended accordingly.
Court disposition
The applicant is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the amendments, including the costs of two counsel. The remaining costs in relation to the issue of urgency and section 133 of the Companies Act are costs in the cause of the application.
Orders
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the amendments, including the costs of two counsel.
- The remaining costs in relation to the issue of urgency and section 133 of the Companies Act are costs in the cause of the application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Cheetah Chrome South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: JP Daniels S.C & CT VetterDilokong Chrome Mine (Pty) Limited
Respondent Counsel: AJ Eyles S.C & C RobertsonJohannes Frederick Klopper N.O.
Respondent Counsel: AJ Eyles S.C & C RobertsonChristopher Raymond Rey N.O.
Respondent Counsel: AJ Eyles S.C & C RobertsonJubilee Tailings Treatment Company (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: T Mundell S.C & CH Bothma03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application / Costs Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant should bear the costs occasioned by the amendments to the application.
- 02
How costs relating to urgency and section 133 of the Companies Act should be allocated.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought to amend its application and requested the court's permission under section 133(1) of the Companies Act. It argued that the costs should not be solely for its account, as the amendments and urgency were necessitated by the circumstances of the business rescue process.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that the applicant should be responsible for the costs arising from the amendments, including the costs of two counsel, as these amendments were initiated by the applicant. They further argued that costs related to urgency and section 133 should be costs in the cause, not immediately payable by the applicant.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uniform Rules of Court
Costs occasioned by amendments are generally borne by the party seeking the amendment, unless the court orders otherwise.
- 02
Companies Act 71 of 2008, s133
Costs relating to issues of urgency and statutory interpretation may be ordered as costs in the cause, depending on the circumstances.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court reconsidered its provisional costs order after receiving representations from the first respondent. It accepted the respondents' arguments that the applicant should pay the costs occasioned by the amendments, including the costs of two counsel, as these were necessitated by the applicant's actions. The remaining costs, specifically those relating to urgency and section 133 of the Companies Act, were ordered to be costs in the cause of the application, meaning they will be determined at the conclusion of the main application. The previous order was amended accordingly.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that representations on costs can be valuable in ensuring a fair allocation of responsibility.
- The absence of a hearing did not prejudice the parties, as the matter was determined on written submissions.
Court disposition
The applicant is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the amendments, including the costs of two counsel. The remaining costs in relation to the issue of urgency and section 133 of the Companies Act are costs in the cause of the application.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the amendments, including the costs of two counsel.
- The remaining costs in relation to the issue of urgency and section 133 of the Companies Act are costs in the cause of the application.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Order
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3)
REVISED
CASE NO: 45259/2020
In the matter between:
CHEETAH CHROME SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
DILOKONG CHROME MINE (PTY) LIMITED
First Respondent
(IN BUSINESS RESCUE)
JOHANNES FREDERICK KLOPPER N.O.
Second Respondent
CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND REY N.O.
Third Respondent
JUBILEE TAILINGS TREATMENT COMPANY (PTY) LTD
Fourth Respondent
ORDER
ON COSTS
FABRICIUS J
[1] On 19 October 2020, I delivered a written judgment dealing with a notice of amendment and the permission of the court referred to in s133 (1) of the Companies Act.
[2] I made a provisional costs order only and invited representations within 7 days. On 26 October 2020 DCM made such representation and I have re considered my previous provisional costs order.
[3] I agree with their views and par 18.2 of my order is deleted and substituted by the following par 18.2:
"the applicant is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the amendments, including the costs of 2 counsel. The remaining costs in relation to the issue of urgency and s133 of the Companies Act, are costs in the cause of the application.
H
FABRICIUS
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
DATE OF HEARING: NO HEARING
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29 OCTOBER 2020
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:
JP DANIELS S.C &
CT VETTER
INSTRUCTED BY:
THOMSON WILKS INC
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST TO THIRD RESPONDENT:
AJ EYLES S.C &
C ROBERTSON
HOGAN LOVELLS (JOHANNESBURG) INC
COUNSEL FOR THE FOURTH RESPONDENT:
T MUNDELL S.C &
CH BOTHMA
AJH ATTORNEYS
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.