THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case no: 899/2024
In the matter between:
GROUNDSWELL DEVELOPMENTS AFRICA (PTY) LTD FIRST APPLICANT
JEAN PIERRE NORTJE SECOND APPLICANT
HORIZON GROUP (PTY) LTD THIRD APPLICANT
and
CATHERINE JUDY BROWN RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Groundswell Developments Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others v Brown
(899/2024) [2025] ZASCA 201 (22 December 2025)
Coram: PETSE, MBHA and DLODLO AJJA
Heard: Disposed of without the hearing of oral argument.
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ representatives by email, publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal website
and released to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down of the judgment is deemed
to be 11h00 on 22 December 2025.
Summary: Reconsideration of provisional order of Court awarding costs on a punitive
scale – no basis established for variation of such cost s order – provisional order
confirmed.
2
_________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_________________________________________________________________________________
On reconsideration of paragraph 2 of the order of this Court awarding costs against
the second applicant on a punitive scale.
1 Reconsideration of paragraph 2 of this Court’s order ma de on 12 November
2025 is refused.
2 The second applicant is liable for the respondent’s costs associated with this
reconsideration on a party and party scale.
_________________________________________________________________________________
SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mbha AJA (Petse and Dlodlo AJJA concurring):
[1] On 12 November 2025 this Court delivered its judgment in an application for
reconsideration referred to it by the President pursuant to s 17(2) (f) of the Superior
Courts Act.1 In terms of which the application was dismissed with costs on an attorney
and client scale.
[2] In so far as the cost s order is concerned, this Court directed, in terms of
paragraph 3 of its order, that unless the second applicant indicated to the Registrar of
this Court in writing within ten days of the date of its order that he wishes the scale of
costs to be reconsidered and varied, he must file an affidavit in which he shows cause
why that should be done.
[3] The second applicant has accordingly filed written submissions to persuade
this Court as to why a punitive cost s order is inappropriate and should therefore not
have been made. However, for the most part the second applicant’s submissions were
1 Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
3
no more than a rehearsal of the arguments he advanced at the hearing of the main
reconsideration application. He has said less about why the punitive costs order is not
appropriate in the context of the facts of this case. For her part, the respondent has
also filed an opposing affidavit in support of the provisional punitive cost s order
previously made.
[4] Having considered all the submissions made both against and in support of the
punitive costs order in the context of the factual findings made in the main judgment,
I am not at all persuaded that the second applicant has shown that the punitive costs
order against him is not justified. On the contrary, I remain convinced that the second
applicant’s conduct was unconscionable and that the respondent was the victim of his
egregious scheme.
[5] In these circumstances, the provisional punitive costs order against the second
applicant as set out in paragraph 3 of this Court’s order of 12 November 2025 is now
made final within the result that it shall henceforth operate with immediate effect.
[6] In the result the following order is made:
1 Reconsideration of paragraph 2 of this Court’s order made on 12 November
2025 is refused.
2 The second applicant is liable for the respondent’s costs associated with this
reconsideration on a party and party scale.
___________________________
B H MBHA
ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL
4
Representatives
For the first and third applicants: Non
For the second applicant: In person
For the respondent: Jordaan and Ferreira Inc, Cape Town
Horn and Van Rensburg Attorneys, Bloemfontein.