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
Bosman N.O obo A.R.J v Letsoalo and Another (82982/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 952 (23 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success. The underlying urgent relief was moot and the costs order stood.
Rantoa Service Providers CC and MEC: Department of Police, Roads and Transport, Free State Province and 1 Other (2824/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 263 (22 August 2024)
The court held that belated written reasons for a rejected tender were sufficient, making the further-reasons and document requests moot. Costs were awarded to the applicant on Scale B.
Municipal Manager of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Twin City Realty (Pty) Ltd and Another (2939/2017) [2024] ZAGPJHC 140 (19 February 2024)
The High Court held that both sides succeeded in the reconsideration application, so each party must pay its own costs, including the opposed costs application.
Maluleko v Total SA (Pty) Ltd (2019/16965) [2023] ZAGPJHC 161 (24 February 2023)
The court found that the plaintiff was the successful party following the defendant's concession of liability on the merits. The plaintiff had incurred unnecessary expenses due to the defendant's conduct, including delays and failure to settle earlier. The merits trial is a self-standing stage, and it is fair and just to award costs immediately rather than reserving them for the quantum stage. The plaintiff was entitled to bring the claim in the High Court, and all litigation to date had been conducted there. The court exercised its discretion to award costs on the High Court scale, finding i…
Source excerpt
Karibuni Security Services CC v Matsepe NO and Others (1966/2012) [2020] ZANCHC 77 (30 October 2020)
The court found that although the COVID-19 infection of the applicant's main witness was an unfortunate event, the applicant's attorneys failed to timeously and explicitly inform the respondents of the witness's medical condition. The delay in bringing the application for postponement resulted in the respondents incurring unnecessary costs in preparing for the trial. The court held that the applicant's conduct justified a wasted costs order against it, but not on a punitive scale nor including costs for senior counsel. The applicant's own tender of wasted costs further indicated acceptance of…
Source excerpt
Road Accident Fund v Skosana (A4/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 342 (29 July 2020)
The court held that the Fund had made a valid election under Regulation 3(3)(dA) by notifying the respondent's attorneys of its intention to appoint its own medical experts for a further assessment. The respondent's review application was therefore premised on an incorrect assumption. The relief sought by the respondent could not have been granted, and the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs applied. The court found no good grounds to depart from this rule, as the Fund's conduct did not warrant an adverse costs order. The costs order made by the court a quo was set asi…
Source excerpt
Road Accident Fund v van Schoor (1801/2016) [2019] ZAECPEHC 58 (17 September 2019)
The High Court reconsidered costs under Rule 34 after a Road Accident Fund settlement offer exceeded the judgment amount and shifted later costs to the plaintiff.
Long v South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd and Others; Long v South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT61/18) [2019] ZACC 7; (2019) 40 ILJ 965 (CC); 2019 (5) BCLR 609 (CC) ; [2019] 6 BLLR 515 (CC) (19 February 2019)
The Constitutional Court held that a precautionary suspension need not be preceded by a hearing, and set aside an adverse costs order made by the Labour Court.
Road Accident Fund v Isaacs (1552/14) [2018] ZANCHC 27 (11 May 2018)
The appeal was dismissed as the trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding costs on the High Court scale. The court considered the absence of complexity or other factors necessitating High Court attention, but also noted the RAF's failure to request transfer to the Magistrates Court, the late settlement offers, and the handling of related matters on the High Court scale. The trial court's remarks regarding the conduct of the attorneys were directed at the delay in finalising the matter and did not impugn the dignity or professional standing of the attorneys. There was no misdir…
Source excerpt
Nieuwenhuis v Registrar Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (3540/2015) [2016] ZAECPEHC 72 (1 November 2016)
The court found that Regulation 3(14)(a) does not provide for the Road Accident Fund to pay legal costs incurred by claimants in review applications. The regulation is intended to govern costs between the Fund and the Health Professions Council only. The applicant's reliance on the Buthelezi judgment was misplaced, as that case involved successful review applications and the exercise of judicial discretion, not a statutory entitlement to costs against the Fund. In this matter, the applicant did not pursue the review to its conclusion but sought only costs. The Third Respondent played no role…
Source excerpt
Explore more
