South Africa Case Law

Roadmac Surfacing (Pty) Ltd v MEC for the Department of Police, Roads and Transport, Free State Province and Another (461/2023)

Roadmac Surfacing (Pty) Ltd v MEC for the Department of Police, Roads and Transport, Free State Province and Another (461/2023) [2024] ZASCA 157 (14 November 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

461/2023

Judges

Hughes, Mabindla-Boqwana, Molefe, Keightley, Mjali

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appeal on the merits was moot, as the works had been completed and no practical effect would result from further relief regarding the tender award. However, the High Court's failure to determine the reserved costs from the interim interdict proceedings constituted an exceptional circumstance under s 16(2) of the Superior Courts Act. The appellate court found that justice required resolution of the outstanding costs issue, as the matter had not reached finality. The first respondent was liable for the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the…

Source excerpt

• Practical Effect Of Appeal
• Reserved Costs
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Tender Review
• Interim Interdict

Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service v Phakati and Others (2406/2021)

Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service v Phakati and Others (2406/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1958 (24 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2406/2021

Judge

C J van der Westhuizen

The High Court struck off a reserved-costs application as moot after an ex parte tax preservation order had already been discharged by agreement.

• Preservation Order
• Reserved Costs
• Tax Administration Act
• Costs Discretion
• Mootness
• Reserved-costs

SecureBT (Pty) Ltd v Norris and Another (21699/2021)

SecureBT (Pty) Ltd v Norris and Another (21699/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1037 (15 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21699/2021

Judge

Strydom

The High Court varied a costs order to include reserved Part A costs against the first respondent, but refused to add the second respondent to that liability.

• Variation Of Court Orders
• Reserved Costs
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Functus Officio
• Costs Taxation
• Variation-of-court-orders

Sheriff Pretoria Central v Minister of Police (67117/2019)

Sheriff Pretoria Central v Minister of Police (67117/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 27 (19 January 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

67117/2019

Judge

Kollapen

The High Court awarded reserved interlocutory costs on an unopposed party-and-party scale and declined to order punitive costs.

• Reserved Costs
• Party And Party Scale
• Unopposed Application
• Reserved-costs
• Party-and-party-costs
• Unopposed-application

Skole-Ondersteuningsten Sentrum NPC and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others (24258/2020)

Skole-Ondersteuningsten Sentrum NPC and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others (24258/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 639 (23 October 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24258/2020

Judge

Fabricius

The High Court clarified its earlier order, confirming that the first respondent must pay costs on an attorney-and-client scale, including reserved costs and two counsel.

• Costs Order
• Attorney And Client Scale
• Reserved Costs
• Clarification Of Judgment
• Costs-order
• Attorney-and-client-costs

Mohale v Minister of Safety and Security (1367/09)

Mohale v Minister of Safety and Security (1367/09) [2016] ZAECPEHC 76 (13 December 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1367/09

Judge

NW Gqamana

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his failure to serve the required notice and for the delay in bringing the condonation application. Despite being made aware of the non-compliance, he took no remedial action for almost seven years. The explanation offered was lacking and insufficient, and the applicant's bona fides were questionable, particularly as he refused to sign the condonation application when advised by his attorney. The prospects of success on the merits were found to be very slender. The court was not satisfied that good cause existed to grant condonati…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State
• Failure To Serve Notice
• Good Cause
• Reserved Costs

N.E.B v M.T.B (EL1311/2016, ECD3211/201)

N.E.B v M.T.B (EL1311/2016, ECD3211/201) [2016] ZAECELLC 9 (1 December 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL1311/2016, ECD3211/201

Judge

S M Mbenenge

The High Court postponed an urgent section 18 application, directing that it be heard with the leave-to-appeal application before the judge who granted the custody order.

• Interim Custody
• Section 18 Application
• Leave To Appeal
• Superior Courts Act
• Reserved Costs
• Section-18-application

Sewpersadh v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Another (71706/2011)

Sewpersadh v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Another (71706/2011) [2016] ZAGPPHC 30 (22 January 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

71706/2011

Judge

A.M.L. Phatudi

The High Court dismissed an application to vary or clarify costs orders, holding that the earlier costs order already covered the Rule 35(7) costs and that no basis existed for reserved or attorney-client costs.

• Costs Award
• Reserved Costs
• Rule 35 7 Application
• Civil-procedure
• Costs-award
• Reserved-costs

Triotrade Gauteng CC v Grainco (Edms) Bpk (10375/2012)

Triotrade Gauteng CC v Grainco (Edms) Bpk (10375/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 930 (14 December 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

10375/2012

Judge

C.P. Rabie

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay reserved costs and dismissed the defendant’s application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

• Leave To Appeal
• Contract Formation
• Reserved Costs
• Expert Evidence
• Animus Contrahendi
• Leave-to-appeal

Qunta v Road Accident Fund (1477/2006)

Qunta v Road Accident Fund (1477/2006) [2008] ZAECHC 80; 2008 (6) SA 83 (E) ; (12 June 2008)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

1477/2006

Judge

Chetty

The court found that although the plaintiff's attorney made an error in the rule 37(4) list, the defendant's refusal to agree to the separation of issues was unreasonable, especially since the defendant conceded the merits the following day. The reserved costs were not automatically attached to the main judgment and required judicial determination. The court held that the defendant's conduct unnecessarily prolonged proceedings and, in the interests of fairness, ordered the defendant to pay the reserved costs incurred due to the application for separation of issues.

Source excerpt

• Reserved Costs
• Separation Of Issues
• Road Accident Claim
• Quantum Of Damages