Automated Summary
Key Facts
In case CIV. CASE NO. 1239/97, Dumisa Mbusi Dlamini (plaintiff) sought costs against defendants Swaziland Sugar Association, Petrus Frederick De Beer, and Robinson Bertram. The court ruled on 25 June 1999 that the matter should be referred for oral evidence to resolve disputes over prior cost endorsements. Judge S.B. Maphalala presided, with counsel B. Simelane representing both parties.
Issues
The court addressed the issue of whether the applicant is entitled to costs in this matter, as counsel for the applicant submitted their entitlement. The dispute centered on whether costs were previously granted by the court, with the respondents arguing that no such endorsement exists in the court file. The judge ruled to refer the matter for oral evidence to resolve this contention.
Holdings
The court ruled to refer the matter for oral evidence to determine the contentious point regarding prior cost endorsements.
Remedies
The court ruled that the matter be referred for oral evidence to determine the contentious issue of whether costs were previously granted by the court. This decision follows conflicting submissions from counsel regarding the existence of a prior endorsement in the court file.
Legal Principles
The court ruled that the matter be referred for oral evidence to determine the contentious point of costs, following the suggestion from counsel for the defendant that the original attorneys be called to give evidence on oath.
Judge Name
S. B. Maphalala J
Passage Text
- The matter appeared before me on the 19th March, 1999 where counsel for the applicant submitted that they are entitled to costs in this matter. It was argued that costs were granted by this court in this matter on a prior occasion. However, this was disputed by Mr. Simelane for the respondents who submitted that no where in the court file is it reflected that such endorsement was ever made. It emerged in the heat of arguments that the attorneys who handled the matter then are not the ones who were arguing the matter on the 19th March 1999. That those attorneys might shed more light on what transpired on this prior occasion. Mr. Simelane for the defendant suggested that these be called to give evidence on oath on this aspect.
- I think Mr. Simelane's suggestion is sound. I thus rule that the matter be referred for oral evidence to determine this contentious point.