South Africa Case Law

Delowar and Another v Soomar and Another (EL410/2021)

Delowar and Another v Soomar and Another (EL410/2021) [2021] ZAECELLC 21 (13 July 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL410/2021

Judge

S M Mbenenge

The court found that the respondents' concession regarding restoration of possession resolved the central dispute. The applicants failed to prove actual possession of the keys, only access to the store, which limited the spoliation remedy. Claims for unliquidated damages are not competent in motion proceedings and are not sanctioned by the applicable court directions. The applicants' delay and failure to accept the respondents' proposed order unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings, justifying a split costs order. The rule nisi was discharged, possession restored, and the respondents interdic…

Source excerpt

• Spoliation
• Lease Agreement
• Interim Interdict
• Unliquidated Damages
• Costs Apportionment

Gower and Another v Tol and Others (4236/2014)

Gower and Another v Tol and Others (4236/2014) [2017] ZAECGHC 10 (1 February 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

4236/2014

Judge

M Makaula

The court held that costs should follow the result for each distinct claim rather than awarding an arbitrary percentage of total costs. The approach adopted in Golding was preferred, as it allows the taxing master to accurately calculate costs attributable to each claim. The plaintiffs must pay the defendants' costs for the withdrawn Will claim, and the defendants must pay the plaintiffs' costs for the successful improvements claim. The amended settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the first and seventh defendants was made an order of court.

Source excerpt

• Costs Apportionment
• Withdrawal Of Claim
• Compensation For Improvements
• Will Dispute

Lombard Finance (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mallach NO (13574/08)

Lombard Finance (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mallach NO (13574/08) [2013] ZAWCHC 30 (26 February 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13574/08

Judge

Griesel

High Court claim over oral loans and a disputed share transfer: repayment with interest was ordered, but the share-transfer claim failed.

• Oral Agreement
• Loan Repayment
• Interest On Loans
• Share Transfer
• Prescription
• Costs Apportionment

B.O.O v N.N.O

B.O.O v N.N.O [2011] ZAGPPHC 182; 35432/2008, 42644/2010, 40419/201 (2 September 2011)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

35432/2008, 42644/2010, 40419/2010

Judge

E M Makgoba

Divorce judgment granting divorce, ordering division of the joint estate, discharging interim interdicts, and referring children’s residence issues to the Family Advocate.

• Divorce
• Forfeiture Of Patrimonial Benefits
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Primary Residence Of Minor Children
• Interim Interdict
• Costs Apportionment

Letlape v Road Accident Fund (207/06)

Letlape v Road Accident Fund (207/06) [2007] ZANWHC 44 (23 August 2007)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

207/06

Judge

Swart

The court ordered the Road Accident Fund to pay half the educational psychologist’s fees after finding much of the report unnecessary, save for limited support evidence.

• Loss Of Maintenance
• Expert Evidence
• Costs Apportionment
• Road Accident Claim
• Expert-evidence
• Costs-apportionment

Glaxo Welcome SA (Pty) Limited v Mashaba and Others (J3838/98)

Glaxo Welcome SA (Pty) Limited v Mashaba and Others (J3838/98) [1999] ZALC 101 (21 June 1999)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J3838/98

Judge

G J Marcus

Labour Court review of a CCMA award. The court set aside only the finding on obstructing the disciplinary process and sent that issue back to the CCMA.

• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Procedural Fairness
• Double Jeopardy
• Disciplinary Code
• Onus Of Proof
• Costs Apportionment

Monastery Diamond Mining Corporation (Pty) Ltd. v Schimper and Others (144/85)

Monastery Diamond Mining Corporation (Pty) Ltd. v Schimper and Others (144/85) [1986] ZASCA 93 (17 September 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

144/85

Judges

Rabie, Jansen, Joubert, Boshoff, Nestadt

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the apportionment of costs by the court a quo was justified and should not be disturbed. The court found that the furrow issue was of minor importance and that the majority of the proceedings related to the interdicts sought by the Schimpers. The issues raised by the parties were interrelated, and a composite order for costs was appropriate. The Schimpers were substantially successful, having obtained a permanent interdict restraining the company from mining outside the designated areas and the striking out of the company's attorney's affidavit. The compa…

Source excerpt

• Mineral Rights Lease
• Interdict
• Costs Apportionment
• Precious Stones Act
• Extra Statutory Permission