Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Fourie v Botha and Others (500/2024) [2025] ZANCHC 70 (1 August 2025)
The High Court awarded party-and-party costs after an urgent application, but refused punitive attorney-and-client costs for lack of a proper founding case.
Kruger and Another v Maluleke (2726/2024) [2025] ZALMPTHC 11 (5 June 2025)
The court held that the Respondent's unilateral removal of the main urgent application from the roll, without consent or explanation and without a tender for costs, was improper and constituted an abuse of process. The discretion to remove or postpone a matter lies with the court, not a party acting alone, especially in opposed urgent matters. The Respondent's conduct was vexatious and warranted a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale. The objections raised by the Respondent regarding procedural defects and statutory contraventions were dismissed as lacking merit. The court dec…
Source excerpt
Vukile Property Fund Limited v Joli Music (Pty) Ltd t/a Music World (2018/23392) [2025] ZAGPJHC 462 (12 May 2025)
The High Court held that the respondent, having withdrawn its action without tendering costs, must pay the applicant’s costs of the withdrawn action and the costs of this application.
O.D.M v Z.G (Reasons) (74/2025) [2025] ZAECMHC 26 (15 January 2025)
Reasons for a costs order in an urgent family-law application: the court held the respondent had been in contempt for unpaid school fees and ordered Scale B costs.
Singh v South African Reserve Bank and Another (2020/35964) [2024] ZAGPPHC 720 (15 July 2024)
The High Court dismissed the Financial Intelligence Centre’s costs and intervention application, holding it was not formally joined and its affidavit did not justify a punitive costs order.
DHR Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Gomes and Others (1227/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 49 (20 May 2024)
The court ordered the applicant to pay costs on the attorney-and-client scale after withdrawing an urgent application in circumstances found to justify a punitive order.
Marce Fire Fighting Technology (Pty) Ltd and Another v Seale and Others (2024-011161) [2024] ZAGPPHC 235 (8 March 2024)
The court found that the applicants' urgent application was manifestly unsustainable and amounted to an abuse of court process, as the relief sought had already been effected by a prior resolution. The withdrawal of the application occurred only after the court highlighted its unsustainability, indicating reckless and vexatious conduct by the applicants. In line with established legal principles, the court held that the respondents should not bear the wasted costs occasioned by such conduct and awarded punitive costs on the attorney and client scale.
Source excerpt
Engen Petroleum Limited v DAV Distribution CC t/a Willowcrest Convenience Centre (39461-2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 207 (1 February 2024)
The High Court ordered the respondent to pay attorney-and-client costs for a section 18(3) application after it withdrew its leave-to-appeal application without explanation.
Vuselela Security SPV (RF) v Lizoxola Properties (069952/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1129 (6 October 2023)
Leave to appeal was refused because the underlying order had been made by consent. The court also upheld costs on the attorney-and-client scale.
Bidvest Mccarthy Toyota Lynnwood v SSG Cases (Pty) Ltd (025849/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1163 (12 September 2023)
The High Court awarded attorney-and-client costs after finding the respondent’s delay and opposition to costs amounted to an abuse of process.
Explore more
