Total South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Dowraj Service Station CC and Another (16767/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1155 (13 October 2023)

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 >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 1155 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Total South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Dowraj Service Station CC and Another (16767/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1155 (13 October 2023) Total South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Dowraj Service Station CC and Another (16767/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1155 (13 October 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_1155.html sino date 13 October 2023 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER:  16767/2022 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED 13.10.23 In the matter between: TOTAL SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD PLAINTIFF and DOWRAJ SERVICE STATION CC FIRST DEFENDANT YESHMIN HARDUTH SECOND DEFENDANT JUDGMENT FARBER AJ: [1]  At the commencement of the hearing counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff withdrew its application for summary judgment. He submitted that the costs of the application ought to be reserved. Counsel on behalf of the Defendant submitted that it was entitled to the costs of the application. [2]  It is well settled that on the withdrawal of proceedings by a litigant, he is to be considered as having been unsuccessful in those proceedings and thus liable for his adversary’s costs.  The Court nonetheless retains its discretion to proclaim otherwise (see Waikiwi Shipping Co Ltd v Thomas Barlow and Sons (Natal) Ltd 1078 (1) SA 671 AD and Waste Products Utilisation Pty Ltd v Wilkes 2003 (2) SA 590 (W)). [3]  I see no reason why I should not apply the general rule.  I am in a position to determine the question of costs and there is no reason why this should be left to another Court on some future date.  In short the Plaintiff has not advanced cogent reasons the reservation of the costs. I thus decree that the costs of the summary judgment application are to be paid by the Plaintiff. G Farber ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Date of Hearing:  11 October 2023 Date of Judgment: 13 October 2023 APPEARANCES For the Plaintiff: Adv R Petersen Instructed by: Kapditwala Incorporated t/a Dentons For the Defendants: Adv J Karuaihe Instructed by: Des Naidoo & Associates sino noindex make_database footer start