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.
Maepa v Road Accident Fund (2021/44473) [2025] ZAGPJHC 422 (25 April 2025)
The High Court limited a counsel-costs award after a delayed trial start, holding the Road Accident Fund liable only for counsel’s costs on 24 and 25 April 2025.
Fipro Investments v Chief Executive Officer (SANRAL) and Others (2023-015484) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1357 (27 December 2024)
The High Court struck an urgent application off the roll for lack of urgency and ordered costs against the applicant, fixing counsel fees on scales B and C.
Mofokeng and Another v Ridge Body Corporate and Others (4685/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 323 (17 October 2024)
The High Court held that removal from the roll was effectively treated like withdrawal for Rule 41 costs purposes, and ordered the respondents to pay costs.
Khanye v Minister of Police (4810/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 285 (12 September 2024)
The court found that the matter, involving claims for unlawful arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution, was of sufficient complexity and public importance to justify awarding costs on scale B. The trial was certified ready, allocated three days, and involved substantial documentation. The claim value was substantial and outside the jurisdiction of the Regional Court. The court exercised its discretion, guided by Uniform Rules 67A and 69, relevant case law, and commentary, to award costs on scale B for counsel's fees, as the circumstances warranted a higher scale than the default. The def…
Source excerpt
V,D.M v V.D.M (16838/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 210 (6 August 2024)
The applicant was justified in bringing an urgent spoliation application without first sending a letter of demand, given the respondent's hostile and strategic conduct aimed at gaining leverage in divorce negotiations. The respondent's rapid capitulation after receiving the application papers supports the conclusion that the application was well-founded and would have succeeded on the merits. Although the applicant sought punitive costs, the court found that while the respondent's conduct was vexatious, the speed of his compliance and lack of prejudice beyond legal costs did not warrant a pun…
Source excerpt
South African Board of Sheriffs v Cibe (000219/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 583 (21 June 2024)
The High Court partly upheld a review of wasted-costs taxation, reducing reservation and collapse fees but allowing reasonable preparation fees.
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.
Mashavha v Enaex Africa (Pty) Ltd (2022/18404) [2024] ZAGPJHC 387; 2025 (1) SA 466 (GJ) (22 April 2024)
The High Court held that Uniform Rule 67A applied prospectively and that scale A costs were appropriate because the matter was straightforward and brief.
Vehicle Delivery Services a division of Onelogix (Pty) Ltd v Key Group and Another (4655/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 141 (11 May 2023)
High Court costs ruling after settlement of merits and quantum. The court declined punitive costs and awarded party-and-party costs on the High Court scale.
Explore more
