Automated Summary
Key Facts
The applicant, Ntombekhaya Joyce Maclean, withdrew her application on 18 November 2021 after initially terminating her attorneys' mandate in January 2021. The court ruled that while the applicant must pay respondents' costs (including wasted costs from the 12 August 2021 postponement), her former attorneys, Mageza Mokoena Raffee Inc., were not ordered to pay de bonis propriis due to insufficient evidence of gross negligence.
Issues
The court considered whether Mageza Mokoena Raffee Inc. (Magezas) should be ordered to pay the wasted costs of the application de bonis propriis due to their failure to timely withdraw as attorneys of record in January 2021, despite the Applicant terminating their mandate. The judgment evaluates if this conduct constitutes gross negligence or material deviation from professional standards warranting such a costs order.
Holdings
- The court determined that the Applicant must pay the Respondents' costs of the application, including the wasted costs incurred on 12 August 2021 due to the late withdrawal of her former attorneys, Mageza Mokoena Raffee Inc. The court found no basis to deprive the Respondents of their costs in the application.
- The court ruled that there is no costs order de bonis propriis against Mageza Mokoena Raffee Inc., as their failure to timely withdraw did not constitute conduct sufficiently egregious or grossly negligent to warrant such an order.
Remedies
- No costs de bonis propriis ordered against Mageza Mokoena Raffee Inc. for their conduct in the matter.
- Applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs of the application, including the wasted costs of 12 August 2021.
Legal Principles
The court applied principles regarding when legal representatives can be ordered to pay costs de bonis propriis. Such an order requires serious negligence or conduct materially deviating from professional standards, as outlined in cases like Multi-links Telecommunications Limited v Africa Prepaid Services Nigeria Ltd and Pheko v Ekurhuleni City.
Precedent Name
- Lushaba v MEC for Health, Gauteng
- Pheko v Ekurhulini City
- Kenton on Sea Ratepayers Association v Ndlambe Local Municipality
- President of the RSA v The Public Protector
- Multi-links Telecommunications Limited v Africa prepaid Services Nigeria Ltd
Cited Statute
- Joint Rules of Practice for the Eastern Cape
- Rules of Court of South Africa
Judge Name
M.J. LOWE
Passage Text
- "It is true that legal representatives sometimes make errors of law, omit to comply fully with the rules of court or err in other ways related to the conduct of the proceedings. This is an everyday occurrence. This does not, however, per se ordinarily result in the court showing its displeasure by ordering the particular legal practitioner to pay the costs from his own pocket... Such an order is reserved for conduct which substantially and materially deviates from the standard expected of the legal practitioners... Examples are dishonesty, obstruction of the interests of justice, irresponsible and grossly negligent conduct..."
- "...I emphasize that this conclusion is drawn on the basis that I cannot, on what is before me, conclude that Applicant instructed Magezas to withdraw the application, as she maintains... Magezas failure to withdraw, even if implicated in the wasted costs of 12 August 2021, which is far from clear, is not in the circumstances of this matter, conduct sufficiently egregious or grossly negligent as to warrant a costs order de bonis propriis therefore."
- "In my discretion and having heard argument and on a perusal of the papers, I can find no basis at all upon which to deprive Respondents of their costs in the application."