South Africa Case Law

S.A.S v J.M.S (2022/32681)

S.A.S v J.M.S (2022/32681) [2025] ZAGPPHC 3 (6 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/32681

Judge

EF Dippenaar

The court found that the respondent, having withdrawn the appeal, is to be treated as an unsuccessful litigant and is liable for the costs of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal. There was no evidence of a compromise between the parties that each would pay their own costs. The correspondence and notices unequivocally reserved the costs to be argued in the main application, and no agreement to the contrary was reached. The argument that the costs issue was res judicata was rejected, as it conflated the main application with the subsequent appeal process. The court exercised its…

Source excerpt

• Withdrawal Of Appeal
• Costs Liability
• Curator Ad Litem
• Rule 41
• Minor Children

Engen Petroleum Limited v DAV Distribution CC t/a Willowcrest Convenience Centre (39461-2020)

Engen Petroleum Limited v DAV Distribution CC t/a Willowcrest Convenience Centre (39461-2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 207 (1 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

39461/2020

Judge

Noko

The High Court ordered the respondent to pay attorney-and-client costs for a section 18(3) application after it withdrew its leave-to-appeal application without explanation.

• Costs Award
• Section 18 Application
• Withdrawal Of Appeal
• Attorney And Client Scale
• Civil-procedure
• Costs

Taxpayer D v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1518)

Taxpayer D v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1518) [2023] ZATC 5 (23 March 2023)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 1518

Judge

Dlamini

The Tax Court held it lacked jurisdiction to reinstate withdrawn VAT and income tax appeals, and upheld SARS’s point in limine.

• Tax Court Jurisdiction
• Withdrawal Of Appeal
• Reinstatement Of Appeal
• Tax Administration Act
• Rule 42 Tax Court Rules
• Rule 49 Uniform Rules

Bridge Corporate v Zisile and Another (2408/2019)

Bridge Corporate v Zisile and Another (2408/2019) [2020] ZAECGHC 80 (5 August 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

2408/2019

Judge

Rugunanan

The court dismissed Bridge Corporate’s application for costs after finding it lacked locus standi and had not shown authority to bring the proceedings.

• Locus Standi
• Punitive Costs
• Withdrawal Of Appeal
• Authority To Institute Proceedings
• De Bonis Propriis
• Attorney Conduct

Likhojane and Another v Mabena (A75/2015)

Likhojane and Another v Mabena (A75/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 37 (25 February 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A75/2015

Judge

Phalatsi

The High Court set aside a taxing master’s ruling that disallowed perusal fees for an appeal record obtained and used to prepare for hearing.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Perusal Fee
• Appeal Record Service
• Withdrawal Of Appeal
• Taxation-of-costs
• Perusal-fees

Pypers and Others v Odendaal & Summerton Inc (A733/12)

Pypers and Others v Odendaal & Summerton Inc (A733/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 221 (19 July 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A733/12

Judges

MJ Teffo, J Baloyi

High Court costs ruling after withdrawal of an appeal, addressing two interlocutory applications, procedural non-compliance, and the scale of costs.

• Costs Awards
• Withdrawal Of Appeal
• Security For Costs
• Striking Out Defence
• Civil-procedure
• Costs-orders

Competition Commission v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd (91/CAC/Feb10)

Competition Commission v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd (91/CAC/Feb10) [2010] ZACAC 2; [2010] 2 CPLR 195 (CAC) (15 October 2010)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

91/CAC/Feb10

Judges

Wallis, Davis, Patel

The Competition Appeal Court granted leave to withdraw an appeal and cross-appeal after settlement discussions, and held that Tribunal orders cannot be privately altered post-judgment.

• Administrative Penalty
• Withdrawal Of Appeal
• Settlement Agreement
• Tribunal Jurisdiction
• Public Interest Representation
• Competition-law

Rahlogo and Anther v Aventura Loskopdam (JA56/98)

Rahlogo and Anther v Aventura Loskopdam (JA56/98) [1999] ZALAC 38 (3 October 1999)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA56/98

Judges

Mogoeng, Conradie, Nicholson

The Labour Appeal Court struck an appeal from the roll for non-compliance and non-appearance, and refused a de bonis propriis costs order against labour consultants.

• Right Of Appearance
• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Withdrawal Of Appeal
• Striking Off Roll
• Right-of-appearance
• Costs-de-bonis-propriis

Oranje Vrystaatse Vereniging vir Staatsondersteunde Skole and Another v Premier van die Provinsie Vrystaat and Others (CCT12/96)

Oranje Vrystaatse Vereniging vir Staatsondersteunde Skole and Another v Premier van die Provinsie Vrystaat and Others (CCT12/96) [1998] ZACC 4; 1998 (3) SA 692; 1998 (6) BCLR 653 (12 May 1998)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT12/96

Judges

Goldstone, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court refused to make a costs order after the applicants withdrew a moot leave-to-appeal application concerning state-aided school subsidies.

• Costs In Constitutional Litigation
• Mootness
• Withdrawal Of Appeal
• State Aided Schools
• Constitutional Rights Enforcement
• Constitutional-costs

S v Kirsten (231/1986)

S v Kirsten (231/1986) [1987] ZASCA 91; [1988] 1 All SA 282 (A) (22 September 1987)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

231/1986

Judges

Viljoen, Van Heerden, Jacobs, Vivier, Boshoff

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant was entitled to withdraw his appeal against sentence without leave of the court, as the withdrawal was communicated before the court a quo indicated that aggravation of sentence would be considered. The notice of appeal, although imperfectly worded, was sufficiently clear to encompass both conviction and sentence. The court a quo erred in finding that withdrawal required leave after the matter was set down, and further erred in increasing the sentence. The original sentence imposed by the magistrate, while on the lenient side, was not distur…

Source excerpt

• Withdrawal Of Appeal
• Sentencing Discretion
• Parity Of Sentence
• Theft
• Aggravating And Mitigating Factors