Vukile Property Fund Limited v Joli Music (Pty) Ltd t/a Music World (2018/23392) [2025] ZAGPJHC 462 (12 May 2025)

Vukile Property Fund Limited v Joli Music (Pty) Ltd t/a Music World (2018/23392) [2025] ZAGPJHC 462 (12 May 2025)

The court finds that the respondent withdrew the action without tendering costs and failed to raise any valid legal defence to the applicant's claim for costs. The delays cited by the respondent do not constitute wrongful conduct by the applicant or its attorneys. In the absence of special circumstances, the general...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 462
Parties
Applicant: Vukile Property Fund Limited; Respondent: Joli Music (Pty) Ltd t/a Music World; Plaintiff: Joli Music (Pty) Ltd t/a Music World; Defendant: Vukile Property Fund Limited; Defendant: Sivalutchme Moodliar N.O; Defendant: Kgashane Christopher Monyela N.O; Defendant: Pogiso Tumisang Timothy Mfolo N.O
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 May 2025
Case Number
2018/23392
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Withdrawal Costs Determination
Outcome
Application granted. Costs awarded to the applicant on the ordinary scale.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Action, Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale
Civil Procedure Withdrawal of Action Costs Award Attorney and Client Scale

Source-derived case record

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

Vukile Property Fund Limited

Applicant

Joli Music (Pty) Ltd t/a Music World

Respondent

Joli Music (Pty) Ltd t/a Music World

Plaintiff

Vukile Property Fund Limited

Defendant

Sivalutchme Moodliar N.O

Defendant

Kgashane Christopher Monyela N.O

Defendant

Pogiso Tumisang Timothy Mfolo N.O

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Withdrawal Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs following the respondent's withdrawal of the action.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on the attorney and client scale.
  3. 3 Whether any valid legal defence to the costs claim has been raised.

Ratio Decidendi

The court finds that the respondent withdrew the action without tendering costs and failed to raise any valid legal defence to the applicant's claim for costs. The delays cited by the respondent do not constitute wrongful conduct by the applicant or its attorneys. In the absence of special circumstances, the general rule applies: the withdrawing party is liable for the costs of the proceedings. The court is not persuaded that costs should be borne equally or that each party should pay its own costs. No basis exists for awarding costs on the attorney and client scale, as no exceptional conduct by the respondent is established. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to the costs of the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Costs awarded to the applicant on the ordinary scale.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the withdrawn action.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the present application.