Veleleni v Minister of Safety and Security (483/2006) [2011] ZAECGHC 7 (4 March 2011)

Veleleni v Minister of Safety and Security (483/2006) [2011] ZAECGHC 7 (4 March 2011)

The court found that the respondent's repeated delays and failure to comply with statutory requirements directly caused the removal of the main action from the trial roll. The respondent was obliged to file a notice of withdrawal and tender the wasted costs but failed to do so. The applicant was justified in opposing the condonation application and seeking costs. The respondent's conduct necessitated the present application, and the court held that the respondent must bear the wasted costs occasioned by the removal as well as the costs of the application.

Citation
[2011] ZAECGHC 7
Parties
Applicant: Phumza Veleleni; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2011
Case Number
483/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Application Following Removal of Main Action From Trial Roll
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the removal of the main action from the trial roll and the costs of this application.
Judges
E. Revelas
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs, Removal From Trial Roll, Condonation Application, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State
Civil Procedure Wasted Costs Removal From Trial Roll Condonation Application Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phumza Veleleni

Applicant

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Application Following Removal of Main Action From Trial Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is liable for the wasted costs occasioned by the removal of the main action from the trial roll.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should pay the costs of the present application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's repeated delays and failure to comply with statutory requirements directly caused the removal of the main action from the trial roll. The respondent was obliged to file a notice of withdrawal and tender the wasted costs but failed to do so. The applicant was justified in opposing the condonation application and seeking costs. The respondent's conduct necessitated the present application, and the court held that the respondent must bear the wasted costs occasioned by the removal as well as the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the removal of the main action from the trial roll and the costs of this application.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the removal of the main action from the trial roll for 25 October 2010.
  • The respondent is further ordered to pay the costs of this application.