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
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 229
|
|
Truvelo Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd v Rojean and Others (59301/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 229 (24 April 2015)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case number:
59301/2014
Date: 24/04/2015
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST
TO OTHER JUDGES
In the matter
between:
TRUVELO
MANUFACTURERS (PTY)
LTD
.........................................................................
APPLICANT
And
ROJEAN
HATTINGH
.....................................................................................................
1
ST
RESPONDENT
RODNEY
HATTINGH
.....................................................................................................
2
nd
RESPONDENT
MORKEL & KRAUSE
RIFLE MAKERS
JOHANNESBURG
(PTY)
LTD
.......................................................................................
3
rd
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
PRETORIUS J.
[1] An urgent
application was launched due to the respondents contravening a
restraint of trade agreement. On 30 September 2014
the matter was
postponed to 24 October 2014. On 24 October 2014 the respondents gave
comprehensive undertakings which were incorporated
into the court
order by agreement and costs were reserved.
[2] This court heard
the costs argument and has to decide which party should pay the
costs. It is clear from the merits of the case
that the applicant had
requested undertakings from the respondents prior to launching the
application. The respondents chose not
to give such undertakings and
therefor the applicant had no choice, but to launch an application to
enforce the restraint of trade.
[3] Due to the fact
that the applicant was successful in that the respondents gave
certain undertakings, costs would normally follow
the outcome. The
applicant is requesting costs for 2 October 2014, when the
undertaking by the respondents was made an order of
court, and the
costs of the present application.
[4]
The respondent, when giving the undertaking, set out:
“
We
confirm that the matter as to costs of the present litigation be
reserved ”
[5] I have
considered all the arguments, read the papers and am not persuaded by
the respondents that costs should not follow the
outcome. The
applicant conceded that it will only be asking costs for 2 October
2014 and the present application.
[6] Therefor I make
the following order:
1. The
respondents are ordered to pay the costs of 2 October 2014;
2. The
respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application.
Judge C Pretorius
Case number:
59301/2014
Application heard
on: 14 April 2015
For the Applicant:
Adv. AA BOTHA
Instructed by: DE
BEER JANSE VAN VUUREN INC
For the Respondent:
Adv. AJ SWANEPOEL
Instructed by: VOGEL
INCORPORATED
Date of Judgment: 24
April 2015