Mahamo v Venter and Others (A98/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 373 (19 November 2024)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
A98/2024
Judges
Chesiwe, Greyling-Coetzer
The appeal against a magistrate’s costs order was dismissed. The High Court found no basis to interfere with the attorney-and-client costs awarded on rescission.
YG Properties Investments (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another (Leave to Appeal Application) (2023/059368) [2024] ZAGPJHC 799 (13 August 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2023/059368
Judge
VM Movshovich
The High Court struck a leave to appeal application from the roll, holding that the interim and urgency orders were not appealable and had lapsed.
Minister of South African Police Services and Others v Mudolo (A274/12022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 869 (17 July 2024)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
A274/12022
Judges
Janse van Nieuwenhuizen, Kubushi, Collis
The court held that the appeal had become moot due to the setting aside of the underlying Magistrates Court order and the dismissal of subsequent appeals. The only remaining issue was the cost order. The appellants failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by section 16(2)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act to justify setting aside the cost order. The court emphasized that fairness or perceived unconscionable results are not the test; only truly exceptional circumstances warrant deviation from the general rule that costs alone do not justify hearing a moot appeal. Both parties…
Cyril and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (186/2023) [2024] ZASCA 32 (28 March 2024)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
186/2023
Judges
Gorven, Kgoele, Coppin, Smith, Keightley
The Supreme Court of Appeal struck an appeal from the roll, holding that an order allowing SARS to intervene in a review over admissibility was not appealable.
Blair Atholl Homeowners Association (NPC) v Meyer and Another (46150/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 285 (14 March 2024)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
46150/2018
Judge
C Collis
The High Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the applicant had shown reasonable prospects of success under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
Body Corporate of Merriman Court and Others v Greeff - Reasons for Rule 42(1) (A212/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 46 (19 February 2024)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
A212/2022
Judges
R. Allie, G. Salie, N. Mangcu-Lockwood
The Full Bench found that the original judgment delivered on 13 February 2024 omitted a clear order regarding the costs of the appeal. Given the appellants' success, the principle that costs follow the result applies. The omission was rectified under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules, and the order was varied to specify that the respondent shall bear the costs of the appeal. The orders of the court a quo were set aside, and the respondent's application was dismissed with costs.
Provincial Heritage Authority, Eastern Cape v Mellon Developments (CA 254/2019; 515/2018) [2021] ZAECGHC 100 (18 November 2021)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
CA 254/2019; 515/2018
Judges
Hartle, Schoeman, Rusi
The appeal was rendered moot because the respondent sold and transferred the property before the appeal was heard, making any order regarding the demolition permit ineffective. The Heritage Act confers a personal right to the permit applicant, which cannot be transferred to a new owner. The respondent, as a reasonable litigant, should have informed the appellant of the sale once the suspensive conditions were fulfilled, thereby avoiding unnecessary costs. The court found that the costs of the appeal were wasted and should be borne by the respondent, while the costs order of the court a quo sh…
B.N.K (born P) v M.R.K (CA 297/2019) [2020] ZAECGHC 55 (2 June 2020)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
CA 297/2019
Judges
O H Ronaasen, D Van Zyl
High Court appeal about costs after rescission of a default divorce-related order. The court held the magistrate misdirected herself and awarded costs against the respondent.
Durr v Noe and Others (A150/18; 6802/2013) [2019] ZAWCHC 10 (15 February 2019)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
A150/18; 6802/2013
Judges
Baartman, Desai, Fortuin
High Court appeal against a costs order after an exception to a conditional counterclaim in a partnership dispute. The appeal was upheld and the costs order set aside.