About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 27
|
|
Sheriff Pretoria Central v Minister of Police (67117/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 27 (19 January 2021)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO:
67117/2019
In
the matter between :-
SHERIFF
PRETORIA
CENTRAL
Applicant
and
MINISTER
OF
POLICE
Respondent
IN
RE:
MINISTER
OF
POLICE
Applicant
And
SHERIFF:
PRETORIA
Central
1
st
Respondent
William
2
nd
Respondent
Bongani
3
rd
Respondent
Lawrain
4
th
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kollapen
J
[1]
This is judgment that relates to the matter of the costs that were
reserved in this matter
on the 4 November 2019 and 2 March 2020. The
Applicant seeks an order that such costs be unreserved and that the
Respondent be
ordered to pay such costs.
[2]
The background to the matter is that following the granting of urgent
relief by this court
on the 8 October 2019, a rule nisi was
issued which was returnable on the 4 November 2019. The order of the
8 October 2019
also provided that the Respondent would cause the
substantive application contemplated in the order to be issued within
3 days
of the order. That application was only issued in early
December 2019.
[3]
The Applicant’s attorneys sought clarity from the Respondent’s
attorneys as
to what would happen on the return day. Clearly nothing
of substance could have happened given that the main application had
not
been issued. Despite various requests made to it, attorneys for
the Applicant did not respond and the Applicant’s attorneys
were forced to brief counsel to appear on the 4 November 2019 when
the Court then extended the rule to the 2 March 2020 and reserved
costs.
[4]
By the 2 March 2020 the application contemplated in the order of the
8 October 2019 had
been issued and was enrolled for hearing on the
opposed roll for the 9 March 2020. It appears however that the matter
was also
on the urgent court roll for the 2 March 2020 (the date to
which the rule had been extended to). What occurred on the 2 March
2020
was that the Court extended the rule to the 9 March 2020 and
reserved the costs. The Applicant appointed counsel to attend court
for this purpose.
[5]
It is in respect of these reserved costs that the Applicant seeks
relief and it does appear
that the Respondent does not in any serious
manner dispute the Applicant’s entitlement to such costs.
[6]
My view is that those costs were largely incurred as a result of the
failure on the part
of the Respondent’s attorney to respond
adequately and timeously to the Applicant’s attorneys regarding
the status
of the matter. On both occasions the rule should have
simply been extended by agreement and there would have been no need
for the
Applicant to have to brief counsel to attend Court.
[7]
In the result a proper case has been advanced for the relief sought.
In this regard however
my view is that the scale of costs in respect
of the appearance of Counsel on the 4 November 2019 and 2 March 2020
should be on
an unopposed scale basis as it could hardly have been
contemplated that the appearance on those days would have been in
anticipation
of an opposed hearing.
[8]
I also do not intend to award costs on a punitive scale as requested
by the Applicant. While
the Respondent’s attorneys were tardy
in not resolving what was a resolvable issue regarding the matters
being on the roll
for the 4 November 2019 and the 2 March 2020, such
conduct should not attract a punitive costs order.
[9]
The Applicant also seeks the costs of this application which I intend
to grant on an unopposed
basis. The only basis on which the
Respondent opposed the relief sought was on the matter of the scale
of the costs and was indeed
successful on that score.
I
make the following order
1.
That the reserved costs of the 4 November 2019
and 2 March 2020 be unreserved and awarded in favour of the Applicant
(the 1
st
Respondent in the main application) on an unopposed basis and on the
scale as between party and party.
NJ.
KOLLAPEN
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT,
PRETORIA
COUNSEL
FOR THE APPLICANTS
:
Adv GJ
SCHEEPERS SC
Adv WR DU PREEZ
Instructed
by
: SAVAGE
JOOSTE & ADAMS
ATTORNEYS
COUNSEL
FOR THE RESPONDENT
:
Adv Z
MATEBESE SC
Instructed
by
: STATE
ATTORNEY,
PRETORIA
DATE
OF HEARING
: 23
November 2020
DATE
OF JUDGMENT
:
19 January 2021