Vukile Property Fund Limited v Joli Music (Pty) Ltd t/a Music World (2018/23392) [2025] ZAGPJHC 462 (12 May 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 462 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Vukile Property Fund Limited v Joli Music (Pty) Ltd t/a Music World (2018/23392) [2025] ZAGPJHC 462 (12 May 2025) Vukile Property Fund Limited v Joli Music (Pty) Ltd t/a Music World (2018/23392) [2025] ZAGPJHC 462 (12 May 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_462.html sino date 12 May 2025 ###### IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2018/23392 1. Reportable: No 2. Of interest to other judges: No 3. Revised 12 MAY 2025 VUKILE PROPERTY FUND LIMITED Applicant and JOLI MUSIC (PTY) LTD t/a MUSIC WORLD                                 Respondent In re: JOLI MUSIC (PTY) LTD t/a MUSIC WORLD                                 Plaintiff and VUKILE PROPERTY FUND LIMITED                                            First Defendant SIVALUTCHME MOODLIAR N.O                                                   Second Defendant KGASHANE CHRISTOPHER MONYELA N.O                               Third Defendant POGISO TUMISANG TIMOTHY MFOLO N.O                                Fourth Defendant (In their capacities as joint liquidators in the estate of NMC Proprietary Limited in liquidation) JUDGMENT WRIGHT J 1. In 2018 the respondent, Joli Music instituted action as plaintiff against the present applicant, Vukile as first defendant. 2. On 2 September 2021 Joli’s attorneys delivered a notice of withdrawal of the action but did not tender costs. 3. Vukile now applies for the costs of the withdrawn action. It also now seeks the costs of the present application, on the attorney and client scale. 4. The attorneys for Joli filed an answering affidavit saying that they had attempted to advance the litigation but because of missing file delays, covid delays and the fact that Vukile’s attorneys had taken exception to the particulars of claim twice and generally delayed the matter, it was decided that the action be withdrawn for commercial reasons. It is suggested that costs be borne equally or that each side pays its own costs. 5. No wrongful conduct by Vukile or its attorneys is shown. 6. In my view, no valid defence in law is raised to the costs sought. ORDER 1. X as amended - GC Wright Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg HEARD:                 12 May 2025 DELIVERED:         12 May 2025 APPEARANCES: Applicant Adv R Kriek 079 514 9411 advrozannerkriek@counseljhb.co.za Instructed by         Whalley Van Der Lith Inc 011 880 3473 barry@wvl.co.za Respondent         No appearance Instructed by       Bembridge Minnaar Attorneys Inc 011 783 8300 bradley@bm-attorneys.co.za sino noindex make_database footer start