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
A.S v A.S (2625/2019) [2024] ZAECQBHC 84 (14 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to vary a costs order after finding the plaintiff’s Rule 34 tender did not meet the rule’s requirements.
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.
M.D.S v J.P.V (83856/15) [2021] ZAGPPHC 543 (16 August 2021)
In a joint-ownership dispute, the High Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to her costs after the defendant’s conduct prolonged the matter unnecessarily.
Duma Khumalo Stainbank Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality (D5571/2018) [2021] ZAKZDHC 15 (14 April 2021)
The court found that the dispute between the parties centres on whether the respondent owes the applicant any amount beyond the R1 325 184.39 already paid, specifically regarding the calculation and appropriation of interest and VAT on the retention fee and surety bond claims. The respondent's payment was made in settlement of the retention fee plus interest, and the surety bond amount had already been paid to Constantia Insurance. The applicant's claim for further amounts is based on the Executive Committee's resolution, which was subsequently rescinded. The court determined that the calcula…
Source excerpt
Murray N.O and Others v Burger N.O and Others (5797/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 89 (16 September 2020)
The High Court awarded the applicants party-and-party costs up to 3 March 2020, ordered each party to bear later costs, and discharged the rule nisi.
Kekana v Road Accident Fund (206/2017) [2018] ZASCA 75 (31 May 2018)
The SCA held that prescription had run because the claimant already knew the facts giving rise to his claim; later legal advice did not restart time.
Adams N.O v Road Accident Fund (1406/04) [2006] ZANCHC 23 (21 April 2006)
The court found that the defendant's offer to settle the merits and pay costs was made at a very late stage, immediately before a long weekend, and without reasonable arrangements to ensure the plaintiff's attorneys received notice. The offer did not specify a cut-off date for costs, and the plaintiff's subsequent expenses were unavoidable and reasonable under the circumstances. The defendant assumed the risk of late communication and failed to take adequate steps to notify the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to costs up to and including 18 April 2006, the date of trial.
Source excerpt
Santam Ltd. v Sayed (470/96) [1998] ZASCA 85; [1998] 4 All SA 564 (A) (28 September 1998)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that 'without prejudice' offers made by the appellant did constitute offers of settlement under section 14(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, thereby suspending prescription for 90 days. However, the statutory prescriptive period expired at the end of February 1993, and subsequent extensions granted by the appellant were contractual, not statutory, and did not incorporate a further 90-day suspension upon the making of a second offer. The respondent failed to establish a tacit term that a 90-day suspension would apply to the contractual extension period,…
Source excerpt
Explore more
