---

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

---