Yatzee Investments BK h/a Seef Weskus v de Beer and Others (10583/06) [2007] ZAWCHC 44 (17 August 2007)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2007
>>
[2007] ZAWCHC 44
|

|

Yatzee Investments BK h/a Seef Weskus v de Beer and Others (10583/06) [2007] ZAWCHC 44 (17 August 2007)

9
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE
PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE NO: 10583/06
In
the matter between:
YATZEE INVESTMENTS BK
H/A SEEFF WESKUS
Applicant
and
PIETER DE BEER
1
st
Respondent
MARIZA SAAYMAN
2
nd
Respondent
JOHANNES
VAN WYNGAARD
3
rd
Respondent
ACCUTTS
4
th
Respondent
J U D G M E N T : 17
AUGUST 2007
MEER,
J:
Introduction.
[1] In this application
Applicant seeks an order in respect of costs only, in circumstances
where it succeeded in obtaining the relief
sought in two of the
prayers in an application brought on 2 October 2006 (prayers 2.1 and
2.2), and abandoned the relief sought in
three of the remaining
prayers, (at prayers 2.3 to 2.5).
[2] On 2 October 2006
Applicant urgently sought the following relief at paragraph 2 of its
notice of motion.
“
2. ’n
Bevel
nisi
word gelas wat Respondente aansê om op Maandag, 23 Oktober 2006,
redes, indien enige, aan te voer waarom die volgende bevel nie
toegestaan moet word nie:
2.1 Eerste
en Tweede Respondent word gelas om Tweede Respondent se naambalkie,
Applikant se dagboeke, alle lystingsvorms van kopers
en verkopers
(asook afskrifte daarvan), munisipale lyste en kaarte en
bordstaanders van Applikant onverwyld aan Applikant te oorhandig;
2.2 Derde
Respondent word gelas om Applikant se dagboeke, munisipale lyste en
kaarte en bordstaanders van Applikant onverwyld aan
Applikant te
oorhandig;
2.3 Vierde
Respondent word gelas om Eerste, Tweede en Derde Respondent se name
en besonderhede onverwyld van hul webwerf te verwyder;
2.4 Eerste
en Tweede Respondent word verbied om tot 25 November 2006 as
eiendomsagente in Veldddrif, Laaiplek en Port Owen besigheid
te
bedryf;
2.5 Derde
Respondent word verbied om tot 25 November 2006 as ‘n eiendomsagent
in Dwarskersbos en Elandsbaai besigheid te bedryf;
2.6 Eerste,
Tweede, Derde and Vierde Respondent word gelas om die koste van die
aansoek te betaal.
3. Paragraaf
2.3, 2.4 en 2.5 hierbo sal geld as ‘n interim interdik hangende
bogemelde keerdatum;
4. Verdere
en/of alternatiewe regshulp.”
[3] The First, Second and
Third Respondents, being estate agents, had each signed a “Sales
Agent Agreement” with Applicant, in
terms whereof Respondents
entered into an association with Applicant who owned the license to
conduct the business of an estate agency
under the SEEFF Property
trademark, on the Cape West Coast. The application stemmed from the
resignation of First, Second and Third
Respondents from their
association with Applicant and their subsequently entering into an
association with Fourth Respondent, another
firm of estate agents.
[4] On 6 October 2006
Respondents filed a notice to oppose the application.
[5] Thereafter on 10
October 2006 the following order was granted by agreement between
Applicant, First and Second Respondents, which
stated
inter alia
as follows:
“
2. ‘n
Bevel
nisi
word gelas wat Respondente aansê om op Dinsday, 31 Oktober 2006,
redes, indien enige, aan te voer waarom die volgende bevel nie
toegestaan moet word nie:
2.1 Eerste
en Tweede Respondent word gelas om Tweede Resondent se naambalkie,
Applikant se dagboeke, alle lystingsvorms van kopers
en verkopers
(asood afskrifte daarvan), munisipale lyste en kaarte en
bordstaanders van Applikant onverwyld aan Applikant te oorhandig;
2.2 Derde
Respondent word gelas om Applikant se dagboeke, munisipale lyste en
kaarte en bordstaanders van Applikant onverwyld aan
Applikant te
oorhandig;
2.3 Vierde
Respondent word verbied om tot 25 November 2006 Eerste, Tweede en
Derde Respondent se name en besonderhede op hul webwerf
te vertoon;
2.4 Eerste
dn Tweede Respondent word verbied om tot 25 November 2006 as
eiendomsagente in Velddrif, Laaiplek en Port Owen besigheid
te
bedryf;
2.5 Derde Respondent word verbied on
tot 25 November 2006 as eiendomsagente in Dwarskersbos en Elandsbaai
besigheid te bedryf;
2.6 Eerste,
Tweede, Derde en Vierde Respondent word gelas om die koste van die
aansoek te betaal;
3. Hangende
bogemelde keerdatum word:
3.1 Vierde
Respondent gelas om Eerste, Tweede en Derde Respondent se name en
besonderhede onverwyld van hul webwerf te verwyder;
3.2 Eerste
en Tweede Respondent verbied om as eiendomsagente in Velddrif,
Laaiplek en Port Owen besigheid te bedryf;
3.3 Derde
Respondent verbied om as eiendomsagent in Dwarskersbos en Elansbaai
besigheid te bedryf;
4. Respondente
moet hulle opponerende eedsverklarings, indien enige, teen 16:00 op
Donderdag, 25 Oktober 2006, aflewer;
5. Applikant
moet hul repliserende eedsverklarings, indien enige, teen, 16:00 op
Maandag, 30 Oktober 2006, aflewer. Applicant word
verlof verleen om
‘n faksimilee-afskrif van hul repliserende eedsverklarings af te
lewer en gemelde eedsverklarings hoef nie aan
die bepalings van reel
63 te voldoen nie;
6. Die
koste van 10 Oktober 2006 staan oor vir latere beregting.”
[6] On 25 October 2006
before Respondents had filed their answering affidavits, their
attorney was informed per fax that on the return
day of 31 October
2006, Applicant would only seek an order in terms of prayers 2.1, 2.2
and 2.6 of its notice of motion. The effect
thereof was that
Applicant abandoned prayers 2.3 to 2.5 of its notice of motion.
[7] In response, it would
appear, on 25 October 2006 Applicant’s attorney was informed that
First, Second and Third Respondent’s
opposing affidavits, which had
already been prepared on the basis of all the relief sought in the
notice of motion, would of necessity
have to be amended as a
consequence of the abandonment of prayers 2.3 to 2.5 of the notice of
motion.
[8] Applicant’s
attorney was simultaneously notified that the First and Second
Respondents were prepared without prejudice to their
rights to hand
over all the items sought at paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the notice of
motion.
[9] On 30 October 2006,
Respondents filed their answering affidavits.
[10] Before the return
day of 31 October 2006, First, Second and Third Respondents handed
over the items sought by Applicant at paragraphs
2.1 and 2.2 of its
notice of motion. Consequently, the only matter which remained for
determination, was the question of costs and
this was postponed for
hearing on 7 August 2007 when the matter came before me.
[11] Mr Mouton for
Applicant submitted that Applicant was substantially successful in
its application, notwithstanding the abandonment
by Applicant of the
relief sought at prayers 2.3 to 2.5, because Respondents had handed
over to Applicant the items sought at paragraphs
2.1 and 2.2 of the
notice of motion. He conceded however that Applicant was liable to
Respondents for the costs incurred in opposing
the abandoned relief.
[12] Mr De la Rey for
Respondents submitted that by virtue of the abandonment of prayers
2.3 to 2.5 Applicants had not achieved
substantial success. Initially
Respondents heads of argument had sought an order that Applicant be
ordered to pay Respondents’
costs, but in argument it was submitted
that a proper order in all of the circumstances would be one
requiring each party to bear
their own costs.
[13] When Applicant
withdrew or abandoned the relief sought at paragraphs 2.3 to 2.5,
Respondents, I believe, were entitled to the
costs or expenses to
which they were put in opposing the withdrawn relief sought in those
prayers.
[14] In
Reuben
Rosenblum Family Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Marsubar (Pty)
Ltd (Forward Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Others Intervening
)
2003(3) SA 547(C) at 550A-D Van Reenen, J stated:
“…
It
is only in exceptional circumstances that a party that has been put
to the expense of opposing withdrawn proceedings will not be
entitled
to all the costs caused thereby…”
[15] In
Germishuys
v Douglas Besproeiiengsraad
1973(3) SA 299 (NC) at 300D, it was stated that a plaintiff or
applicant who withdraws his/her action or application is in the same
position as an unsuccessful litigant because, at the close of the
case such claim or application is futile and the defendant or
respondent
is entitled to all costs caused by the institution of
proceedings by the withdrawing party. This, in my view, applies also
in a situation
where an applicant withdraws some of the relief or
claims sought in an application, as in the present case, where the
relief sought
in respect of prayers 2.3 to 2.5 was withdrawn.
Applicant cannot be said to have succeeded in respect of these
prayers but only to
have succeeded in respect of the relief sought
and obtained at prayers 2.1 and 2.2. Nor can it be said that
Applicant had achieved
substantially all the relief claimed and was
entitled to costs in the light of its abandonment of prayers 2.3 to
2.5. See
Financial Services Board and Another v De Wet NO
and Others
2002 (3) SA 525
(C) at 626E-F and Nicholaides v Marcus
Stores (PTY) LTD
1960 (4) SA 694
(SR) at 694D.
[16] Similarly in Massey
– Ferguson (South Africa) Ltd v Ermelo Motors Pty Ltd and Others
1973 4 SA 206
(T)
, Viljoen J stated that where the plaintiff
succeeds in recovering substantially less than what was claimed or an
appellant succeeds
to an insignificant extent, the opponent in each
case is really substantially the successful party.
[17] On a consideration
of what would be fair to both sides in all of the circumstances, and
juxtaposing Applicant’s success in
relation to prayers 2.1 and 2.2,
against its withdrawal of prayers 2.3 to 2.5, and Respondents’
consequent entitlement to the costs
of their opposition thereof, I
come to the view that an appropriate order in respect of costs, would
be no order.
[18] I accordingly
order as follows:
There
is no order as to costs.
MEER, J
IN THE
CAPE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE
OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
REPORTABLE.
CASE NO: 10583/2006
In the
matter between:
YATZEE INVESTMENS BK
H/A SEEFF WESKUS
Applicant
and
PIETER DE BEER
First
Respondent
MARIZA SAAYMAN
Second Respondent
JOHANNES
VAN WYNGAARD
Third Respondent
ACUTTS
Fourth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
BY : MEER, J
For
the Applicant(s) : Adv. S F MOUTON
Instructed
by : RENCKEN ATTORNEYS
10
La Roche Street
Onverwacht
STRAND
c/o
VISAGIE VOS
501
Wale Street Chambers
33
Church Street CAPE TOWN
For
the Defendants : Adv. H E de la REY
Instructed
by : MADELEYN INC.
C/O
De Beers Attorneys
12
th
Floor 101 St Georges Mall
CAPE
TOWN
(Ref: H De
Beer/Abigail/GYS3/0047)
Date(s)
of hearing : 7 AUGUST 2007
Judgment
delivered : 17 AUGUST 2007