Groundswell Developments Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others v Brown (Supplementary judgment) (899/2024) [2025] ZASCA 201 (22 December 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: Supreme Court of Appeal South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal >> 2025 >> [2025] ZASCA 201 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Groundswell Developments Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others v Brown (Supplementary judgment) (899/2024) [2025] ZASCA 201 (22 December 2025) Groundswell Developments Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others v Brown (Supplementary judgment) (899/2024) [2025] ZASCA 201 (22 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZASCA/Data/2025_201.html sino date 22 December 2025 # THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA # JUDGMENT JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: 899/2024 In the matter between: # # GROUNDSWELL DEVELOPMENTS AFRICA (PTY) LTD         FIRST APPLICANT 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 costs order – provisional order confirmed. # ORDER 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 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. # SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT 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 costs 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 costs order is inappropriate and should therefore not have been made. However, for the most part the second applicant’s submissions were 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 costs 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 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. [1] Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 . sino noindex make_database footer start