About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1155
|
|
SB Ngento Attorneys and Another v Mbiza obo Mbiza and Others (Leave to Appeal) (082843/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1155 (8 November 2024)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
Case
Number: 082843/2024
(1)
REPORTABLE:
no
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED:
Date:
8/11/2024
Signature:
In
the matter between
SB
NGENTO ATTORNEYS
First
Applicant
SB
NGENTO
Second Applicant
and
D
MBIZA obo M
MBIZA
First Respondent
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
Second Respondent
LEGAL
PRACTICE COUNCIL
Third Respondent
JUDGMENT – LEAVE
TO APPEAL
MAHOMED,
AJ
1.
The applicant applies for leave to appeal an order for costs which I
granted in a judgment I handed
down on 30 August 2024. It was
contended that I did not provide reasons as to the order for costs.
It is worthy of
mention that the applicant failed to request reasons
for the order for costs, instead I received a lengthy notice of
appeal before
any reasons were provided. I provided the
reasons and what followed was a lengthy notice again, when counsel
argued
that I introduced new facts which were not included in the
judgment and that I was influenced by the pending investigation by
the
LPC, I disagree, in my judgment I merely referred to the pending
investigation.
2.
Counsel introduced his own complexities to the judgment and order for
costs. I made
a fair order on costs because both parties were
successful to point, the rule was discharged, and the respondent
received the monies
which the applicant held for over a year without
any reasons or an explanation for retaining the funds, despite the
order by Yacoob
J.
3.
Each party
was to pay their own costs, the applicant was not the outright
winner, both parties were successful, I am of the view
that another
court would not arrive at a different finding on the costs. I
set out in my reasons for judgment
[1]
.
It is trite that costs are at a discretion of the court, I set out
the facts
[2]
I considered when I
decided on the costs. It is worth mentioning that the
respondent is in court only because of the applicant’s
unauthorised retention of her monies, there is nothing fair or moral
to order her to pay his costs. An appeal court will
not find
any good grounds to interfere with this finding, a court must also
look to the substance of the judgment and not merely
the form.
I am of the view that there are no prospects of success in the
appeal. I agree with Advocate Hilita, the
applicant simply
argues on points of semantics and creates his own complexities.
Accordingly,
the application for leave is refused.
I
make the following order
1.
Leave to appeal is refused.
2.
The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs on a party party
scale.
MAHOMED
AJ
Acting
Judge of the High Court
This
judgment was prepared and authored by Acting Judge Mahomed. It is
handed down electronically by circulation to the parties
or their
legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic
file of this matter on Caselines. The date
for hand-down is
deemed to be 8 November 2024.
Date
of Hearing : 23 October 2024
Date
of Judgment: 8 November 2024
Appearances
For applicant:
Advocate Heyman
For Respondent:
Advocate Hilita
[1]
CL 18-71 para 2
[2]
Gelb
Hawkins
1960 (3) SA 687
A at 694