SB Ngento Attorneys and Another v Mbiza obo Mbiza and Others (Leave to Appeal) (082843/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1155 (8 November 2024)

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 >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 1155 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## SB Ngento Attorneys and Another v Mbiza obo Mbiza and Others (Leave to Appeal) (082843/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1155 (8 November 2024) SB Ngento Attorneys and Another v Mbiza obo Mbiza and Others (Leave to Appeal) (082843/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1155 (8 November 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_1155.html sino date 8 November 2024 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Case Number: 082843/2024 (1)      REPORTABLE: no (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)      REVISED: Date: 8/11/2024 Signature: In the matter between SB NGENTO ATTORNEYS First Applicant SB NGENTO Second Applicant and D MBIZA obo M MBIZA First Respondent ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Second Respondent LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL Third Respondent JUDGMENT – LEAVE TO APPEAL MAHOMED, AJ 1.      The applicant applies for leave to appeal an order for costs which I granted in a judgment I handed down on 30 August 2024.  It was contended that I did not provide reasons as to the order for costs.  It is worthy of mention that the applicant failed to request reasons for the order for costs, instead I received a lengthy notice of appeal before any reasons were provided.   I provided the reasons and what followed was a lengthy notice again, when counsel argued that I introduced new facts which were not included in the judgment and that I was influenced by the pending investigation by the LPC, I disagree, in my judgment I merely referred to the pending investigation. 2.       Counsel introduced his own complexities to the judgment and order for costs.  I made a fair order on costs because both parties were successful to point, the rule was discharged, and the respondent received the monies which the applicant held for over a year without any reasons or an explanation for retaining the funds, despite the order by Yacoob J. 3. Each party was to pay their own costs, the applicant was not the outright winner, both parties were successful, I am of the view that another court would not arrive at a different finding on the costs.  I set out in my reasons for judgment [1] .    It is trite that costs are at a discretion of the court, I set out the facts [2] I considered when I decided on the costs.  It is worth mentioning that the respondent is in court only because of the applicant’s unauthorised retention of her monies, there is nothing fair or moral to order her to pay his costs.  An appeal court will not find any good grounds to interfere with this finding, a court must also look to the substance of the judgment and not merely the form.  I am of the view that there are no prospects of success in the appeal.  I agree with Advocate Hilita, the applicant simply argues on points of semantics and creates his own complexities. Accordingly, the application for leave is refused. I make the following order 1.          Leave to appeal is refused. 2.         The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs on a party party scale. MAHOMED AJ Acting Judge of the High Court This judgment was prepared and authored by Acting Judge Mahomed. It is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties or their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines.  The date for hand-down is deemed to be 8 November 2024. Date of Hearing :     23 October 2024 Date of Judgment:   8 November 2024 Appearances For applicant: Advocate Heyman For Respondent: Advocate Hilita [1] CL 18-71 para 2 [2] Gelb Hawkins 1960 (3) SA 687 A at 694 sino noindex make_database footer start