South Africa Case Law

Andrea v Setlhabo and Another (CIV APP RC04/22)

Andrea v Setlhabo and Another (CIV APP RC04/22) [2023] ZANWHC 9 (21 February 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CIV APP RC04/22

Judges

A H Petersen, M L Malowa

The High Court found that the Regional Magistrate did not exercise judicial discretion in awarding costs against the appellant. The date allocated for the hearing was intended for service directions under section 4(2) of the PIE Act, not for the main eviction application. The appellant's request for postponement was reasonable under the circumstances, and the costs orders were not justified. Exceptional circumstances existed, warranting appellate interference. The costs orders of 15 October 2021 and 9 December 2021 were set aside and replaced with 'no order as to costs'. The appeal was upheld…

Source excerpt

• Costs Awards
• Eviction Proceedings
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Judicial Discretion In Costs

Public Protector v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others (CCT63/20)

Public Protector v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others (CCT63/20) [2020] ZACC 28; 2021 (5) BCLR 522 (CC); 2022 (1) SA 340 (CC); 83 SATC 313 (15 December 2020)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 63/20

Judges

Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, Victor

The Constitutional Court held that the Public Protector's subpoena powers under the Public Protector Act do not override the confidentiality regime of the Tax Administration Act. Section 69(1) of the Tax Administration Act imposes a clear prohibition on the disclosure of taxpayer information, and the exceptions provided do not include compliance with a Public Protector subpoena. The Public Protector did not bring a direct constitutional challenge to the validity of section 69(1), and therefore cannot obtain relief that would effectively set aside the statutory prohibition. The Court found no…

Source excerpt

• Public Protector Powers
• Taxpayer Privacy
• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Subpoena Powers
• Constitutional Interpretation
• Judicial Discretion In Costs

Campbell NO and Another v Fourie and Another (860/2019)

Campbell NO and Another v Fourie and Another (860/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 213 (7 November 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

860/2019

Judge

Naidoo

High Court costs application after withdrawal of an action was dismissed. The court ordered each party to pay its own costs, finding the withdrawal was justified.

• Costs On Withdrawal
• Judicial Discretion In Costs
• Party And Party Costs
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Costs-on-withdrawal
• Judicial-discretion-in-costs

Silinga and Others v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality (CA266/2017)

Silinga and Others v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality (CA266/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 50 (26 June 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA266/2017

Judges

G G Goosen, F Dawood

The High Court set aside a magistrate’s personal punitive costs order against attorneys, holding that the firm was not properly heard and the order was unjustified.

• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Postponement Of Trial
• Judicial Discretion In Costs
• Punitive Costs Orders
• Costs-de-bonis-propriis
• Postponement-of-trial

Friedemann v Road Accident Fund (2459/12)

Friedemann v Road Accident Fund (2459/12) [2017] ZAKZDHC 44 (13 December 2017)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

2459/12

Judge

Henriques

The High Court discharged a rule nisi seeking punitive costs against Road Accident Fund officials after finding their conduct fell short of the threshold for personal liability.

• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Future Medical Expenses
• Quantum Of Damages
• Judicial Discretion In Costs
• Costs-de-bonis-propriis

Gani v Singh (AR348/16)

Gani v Singh (AR348/16) [2017] ZAKZPHC 39 (3 March 2017)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR348/16

Judges

Lopes, Mnguni

Appeal against a magistrate’s costs order after an adjournment. The High Court held counsel’s fees should have been included on the attorney-and-client scale.

• Costs Award
• Attorney And Client Scale
• Counsel Fees In Magistrates Court
• Adjournment
• Judicial Discretion In Costs
• Civil-procedure

Competition Commission of South Africa v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc and Others (CCT 58/13)

Competition Commission of South Africa v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc and Others (CCT 58/13) [2013] ZACC 50; 2014 (3) BCLR 251 (CC); 2014 (2) SA 480 (CC); [2015] 1 CPLR 1 (CC) (18 December 2013)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 58/13

Judges

Skweyiya, Moseneke, Cameron, Dambuza, Jafta, Froneman, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo

Leave to appeal was granted because the scope of the CAC's powers to award costs against the Commission raises constitutional issues of legality and the proper exercise of statutory powers. The CAC has discretion to award costs against the Commission in its own proceedings, but this must be exercised judicially and in accordance with law and fairness. The Commission, as a statutory body acting in the public interest, should not be exposed to adverse costs orders merely for defending its position unless its conduct is unreasonable, frivolous, or mala fide. The Tribunal has no power to award co…

Source excerpt

• Costs Awards Against Statutory Bodies
• Competition Act Merger Proceedings
• Judicial Discretion In Costs
• Public Interest In Competition
• Statutory Interpretation Of Costs Powers

Absa Bank Ltd and Others v Robb (A3030/2012)

Absa Bank Ltd and Others v Robb (A3030/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 44; 2013 (3) SA 402 (GSJ); [2013] 3 All SA 322 (GSJ) (14 March 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3030/2012

Judges

Boruchowitz, Molahlehi

The magistrate misdirected himself by applying an incorrect test for costs, focusing solely on the statutory status of the respondent rather than considering whether exceptional circumstances existed to deprive the appellants of their costs. The respondent failed to properly apply the statutory standards for debt review, did not provide adequate documentary evidence, and withdrew the application only on the eve of the hearing, causing unnecessary costs. The general rule is that costs follow the result when proceedings are withdrawn, and there was no exceptional circumstance justifying a depar…

Source excerpt

• Costs Award Against Statutory Functionary
• Debt Review
• National Credit Act
• Withdrawal Of Application
• Judicial Discretion In Costs

Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources and Others (CCT 80/08)

Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources and Others (CCT 80/08) [2009] ZACC 14; 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC) ; 2009 (10) BCLR 1014 (CC) (3 June 2009)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 80/08

Judges

Sachs, Langa, Moseneke, Cameron, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Nkabinde, O'Regan, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court and Full Court erred in failing to apply the constitutional context to the costs awards. The general rule in constitutional litigation is that successful private parties should have their costs paid by the state, and unsuccessful parties should not be burdened with adverse costs unless their conduct is frivolous or vexatious. Biowatch achieved substantial success in asserting constitutional rights to information and environmental protection, and the government's persistent refusal to provide information compelled litigation. The High Court's r…

Source excerpt

• Costs In Constitutional Litigation
• Public Interest Litigation
• Right Of Access To Information
• Environmental Rights
• Judicial Discretion In Costs
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act

Trustees for the time being of The Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources and Others (A831/2005)

Trustees for the time being of The Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources and Others (A831/2005) [2007] ZAGPHC 270 (6 November 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A831/2005

Judges

S J Mynhardt, J N M Poswa, L M Molopa

Appeal against a costs order dismissed. The court found no misdirection in the refusal to award Biowatch costs and in ordering it to pay Monsanto’s costs.

• Costs On Appeal
• Public Interest Litigation
• Access To Information
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Environmental Rights
• Judicial Discretion In Costs