Van Niekerk v President of the South African Deep Sea Angling Association (32001A/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1032 (6 June 2014)

Van Niekerk v President of the South African Deep Sea Angling Association (32001A/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1032 (6 June 2014)

The court found that, although the merits of the application had not been dismissed, the applicant compelled the respondent to file answering affidavits and should therefore be liable for all the respondent's costs, including the wasted costs of the day and the costs for preparing the answering affidavit. The Taxing Master's reasons for including the costs of the application were found to be sound, and there was no basis for judicial interference. The application for review was accordingly dismissed, and no special costs order was warranted.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 1032
Parties
Applicant: Cornelius van Niekerk; Respondent: President of the South African Deep Sea Angling Association (SADSAA)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2014
Case Number
32001A/2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Decision Under Rule 48(1)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Basson
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Taxing Master, Costs Orders, Striking From Roll
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review of Taxing Master Costs Orders Striking From Roll

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornelius van Niekerk

Applicant

President of the South African Deep Sea Angling Association (SADSAA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Decision Under Rule 48(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master was correct to tax the full costs of the application rather than only the wasted costs of the day.
  2. 2 Whether the costs order granted by the Court covered only the wasted costs or the entire application.
  3. 3 Whether the prayers sought by the applicant had become moot due to subsequent events.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the merits of the application had not been dismissed, the applicant compelled the respondent to file answering affidavits and should therefore be liable for all the respondent's costs, including the wasted costs of the day and the costs for preparing the answering affidavit. The Taxing Master's reasons for including the costs of the application were found to be sound, and there was no basis for judicial interference. The application for review was accordingly dismissed, and no special costs order was warranted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.