Versteijnen v Collins Property Group Limited and Others (2025-045751) [2025] ZAKZDHC 75 (17 September 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAKZDHC 75 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Versteijnen v Collins Property Group Limited and Others (2025-045751) [2025] ZAKZDHC 75 (17 September 2025) Versteijnen v Collins Property Group Limited and Others (2025-045751) [2025] ZAKZDHC 75 (17 September 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAKZDHC/Data/2025_75.html sino date 17 September 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN Case no.: 2025-045751 In the matter between: EGIDIUS WILLEM VERSTEIJNEN                                                                       Applicant and COLLINS PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED                                                First Respondent THE SHERIFF (LOWER TUGELA)                                                    Second Respondent KWADUKUZA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY                                                 Third Respondent ORDER The following order is granted: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. JUDGMENT BRAMDHEW AJ Introduction [1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the cost order that I granted against the applicant on 4 April 2025.  I directed that the applicant pays the first respondent’s costs on the party and party scale C. [2] The applicant launched an urgent application, requiring the first respondent to prepare an affidavit within truncated timeframes. On the morning upon which the applicant had set the matter down, having had sight of the first respondent’s answering affidavit, the applicant applied for an order adjourning the matter in order to consider the answering affidavit and the documents delivered, and to then deliver a replying affidavit. The adjournment was granted, but costs were awarded to the first respondent on scale C. [3] The applicant seeks to appeal the cost order and the scale on which it was granted. The legal framework [4] The award of costs is in the discretion of the presiding judicial officer. As emphasised by the Constitutional Court in Trencon Construction (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd and Another [1] and Hotz and Others v University of Cape Town , [2] costs orders fall within the category of a true discretion, meaning that an appellate court may interfere only where the discretion was not exercised judicially. [5] This is reinforced by s 16(2) (a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (the Act’), which provides that no appeal lies against a cost order only, unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the hearing of such an appeal. [6] Further, s 17(1) (a) of the Act requires that leave may be granted only if the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason why it should be heard. An arguable case or a mere possibility of success is not enough; there must be a sound, rational basis to conclude that success on appeal is reasonably likely. [3] [7] In Mukanda v South African Legal Practice Council , [4] the court confirmed that appeals on costs alone are rarely allowed. The applicant bears the onus of establishing exceptional circumstances justifying appellate interference. The court stated: ‘ [9]In light of ss 16(2) (a) (ii), 17(1) (a) and 17(1) (b) of the Act and the case law referred to hereinbefore, it can thus be stated that a court will not grant an application for leave to appeal against a costs order only, unless the applicant can satisfy the court that an appeal court would reasonably find that exceptional circumstances exist that warrant such leave. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the appeal would not have any reasonable prospect of success, and the application for leave to appeal will consequently have to be dismissed.’ [8] In respect of the scale of costs awarded, in Gourlay v Road Accident Fund, [5] the court held that: ‘ Awarding counsel’s fees on Scale B or C Scale has nothing to do with a punitive goal.’ Application to the facts [9] The order granted is one solely as to costs. The applicant instituted an urgent application. The first respondent was compelled to instruct counsel and prepare an answering affidavit to meet the applicant’s urgent case. Upon receipt of the first respondent’s answering affidavit, the applicant sought the court’s indulgence to adjourn the matter. The matter was adjourned with no substantive rights being determined by the court . In those circumstances, it was entirely appropriate that the first respondent be awarded its wasted costs. [10] Further, the assessment of an appropriate scale is also a matter of judicial discretion. [6] [11] The cost order reflected settled principles governing wasted costs which fall squarely within the judicial exercise of discretion contemplated by the authorities. [12] The applicant has not shown that the discretion was exercised improperly, nor has any exceptional circumstance been shown to exist. There is no compelling reason why an appeal should be entertained. Order [13] I therefore make the following order: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. BRAMDHEW AJ Case information Heard on: 18 July 2025 Judgment delivered: 17 September 2025 For the applicant: Mr Cassan Instructed by: Rakesh Maharaj & Company 87 Mahatma Ghandi Street Suites B & C KwaDukuza Ref:    RM/TM/V149/CIV For the first respondent: Mr Gounden Instructed by: Woodhead Bigby Attorneys Inc 92 Armstrong Avenue La Lucia, Durban Ref:    JSB/pg/MAT101608 [1] Trencon Construction (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd and Another [2015] ZACC 22 ; 2015 (5) SA 245 (CC) para 85. [2] Hotz and Others v University of Cape Town [2017] ZACC 10 ; 2018 (1) SA 369 (CC) paras 25 and 28. [3] MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha and Another [2021] ZASCA 176 para 17. [4] Mukanda v South African Legal Practice Council 2021 (4) SA 292 (GP). [5] Gourlay v Road Accident Fund [2024] ZAWCHC 398 para 61. [6] Ibid para 54. sino noindex make_database footer start