Westensee v Linde & Westensee CC and Others (857A/2009) [2012] ZAECGHC 98 (26 November 2012)

Westensee v Linde & Westensee CC and Others (857A/2009) [2012] ZAECGHC 98 (26 November 2012)

Both the applicant and respondents failed to comply fully with the procedural requirements for opposed motions, specifically Practice Rule 15A and Uniform Rule 62(4). The applicant did not file a Rule 15A notice for the postponed hearing date, and the respondents did not index and paginate their separate application papers. The court found that responsibility for the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement was shared. Accordingly, each party was ordered to pay their own costs for the wasted day, as neither party was solely at fault for the non-compliance and resulting postponement.

Citation
[2012] ZAECGHC 98
Parties
Applicant: Elizabeth Westensee; Respondent: Linde & Westensee CC; Respondent: MJ Linde & E Westensee CC; Respondent: Merelyn Joy Linde; Respondent: Kevin John Benedict Poovan
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2012
Case Number
857A/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Postponement of Opposed Applications
Outcome
Each party to pay their own costs in respect of the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the applications on 8 November 2012.
Judges
J M Roberson
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs, Practice Rules, Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings, Rule 48 Taxation Review
Civil Procedure Wasted Costs Practice Rules Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings Rule 48 Taxation Review

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Westensee

Applicant

Linde & Westensee CC

Respondent

MJ Linde & E Westensee CC

Respondent

Merelyn Joy Linde

Respondent

Kevin John Benedict Poovan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Postponement of Opposed Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties complied with Practice Rule 15A and Uniform Rule 62(4) for opposed motions.
  2. 2 Who bore responsibility for indexing and paginating application papers for the postponed hearing.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate order as to wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.

Ratio Decidendi

Both the applicant and respondents failed to comply fully with the procedural requirements for opposed motions, specifically Practice Rule 15A and Uniform Rule 62(4). The applicant did not file a Rule 15A notice for the postponed hearing date, and the respondents did not index and paginate their separate application papers. The court found that responsibility for the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement was shared. Accordingly, each party was ordered to pay their own costs for the wasted day, as neither party was solely at fault for the non-compliance and resulting postponement.

Court Disposition

Each party to pay their own costs in respect of the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the applications on 8 November 2012.

Orders

  • Each party shall pay their own costs for the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the applications on 8 November 2012.