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
Segwit Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Kwality Group Africa (Pty) Ltd (2022/021132) [2024] ZAGPPHC 768 (30 July 2024)
The court awarded attorney-and-client costs after the respondent’s late Rule 34 tender and payment, holding the applicant had not accepted a compromise.
Willemse v Road Accident Fund (3214 / 2019) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 17 (4 April 2022)
The High Court dismissed a Road Accident Fund claim after finding the defendant could withdraw a Rule 34 tender accepted by the plaintiff, and that negligence was not proved.
Christian and Another v Minister of Police and Another (2861/2018) [2022] ZAECGHC 28 (29 March 2022)
The court dismissed a Rule 34 reconsideration application and left the costs order intact, finding the Minister’s tender covered the pleaded arrest-and-detention claim.
Mineral-Loy (Pty) Ltd v Highveld Steel & Vanadium Corporation Ltd Steel and Vanadium Limited and Another (34321/10) [2020] ZAGPPHC 618 (11 November 2020)
The High Court dismissed a rule 34(12) application to reconsider costs, holding the defendant’s tenders were non-compliant with rule 34(5) and therefore a nullity.
Milestone Beverage CC and Others v Scottish Whisky Association and Others (2882/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 394 (27 August 2019)
The High Court awarded costs to the respondents and granted the applicants leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, despite finding no reasonable prospects of success.
Wimpey v HPS Africa Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd (5268/19) [2019] ZAGPJHC 266 (16 August 2019)
The court held that an unconditional tender accepted under rule 34 bound the defendant, who could not later add conditions or withdraw it. Judgment was granted for the plaintiff.
Dumbe Transport CC v Alex Carriers (221/08) [2010] ZAKZPHC 71; 2011 (3) SA 664 (KZP) (29 October 2010)
High Court costs ruling after a liability split in a road collision case. The court held the plaintiff was substantially successful and awarded costs despite an unaccepted Rule 34 tender.
NM and Others v Smith and Others (24948/02) [2005] ZAGPHC 134 (19 May 2005)
The court reconsidered costs after a Rule 34 tender, holding that a without-prejudice offer can apply even in constitutional-rights litigation and splitting costs accordingly.
Fox v Cango Wildlife Centre (PTY) Ltd t/a Cango Wildlife Ranch (6010/01) [2004] ZAWCHC 32 (1 November 2004)
The High Court varied a costs and interest order after finding the defendant’s first tender exceeded the award, and reallocated costs accordingly.
Radell v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accident Fund (563/93) [1995] ZASCA 35; 1995 (4) SA 24 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 392 (A) (29 March 1995)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in using the exchange rate at the date of the tender to compare the value of the tender and the award. The correct approach, consistent with the principle of currency nominalism and established case law, is to use the exchange rate at the date of judgment, as that is when the award becomes payable. The court found that, when converted at the judgment date exchange rate, the award exceeded the tender. Consequently, the costs order made by the trial court was incorrect and had to be set aside. However, due to the limited record, the ap…
Source excerpt
Explore more
