De Kock v Davidson and Others

Last updated

De Kock v Davidson and Others [1] is an important case in South African civil procedure. It was an application for a rule nisi, heard in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Colman J on November 3 and 4, 1970; judgment was delivered on November 11. The applicant's attorneys were Michael Kerbel, Johannesburg, and Getz, Behr, Ogus & Mendel Cohen, Pretoria. The respondent's attorneys were Divin, Davis & Miller, Johannesburg, and Carson, Haswell & Co., Pretoria. The applicant was represented in court by J. Unterhalter, SC (with him MM Joffe); SA Rosenzweig appeared for the respondents.

Contents

The application involved the issue of costs. The applicant had applied for order with which the respondents would anyway have complied. The matter was not one of urgency, and no prior demand had been made of the respondent. The applicant, accordingly, was ordered to pay costs of application.

Facts

The applicant had applied for an order calling upon the first and second respondents to transfer to him certain shares in the third respondent, a company in which they held the shares, and to appoint him a director. The respondents, in a replying affidavit, conceded that the applicant was entitled to the orders prayed for.

Judgement

The court, however, held that, as there was no question of urgency, and as there should have been a demand first, and as the respondents would clearly have complied with such a demand, the applicant should pay the costs of the application. "A person," wrote Colman J, "who has instituted unnecessary litigation when he knew, or ought to have known, that it was, or might be, unnecessary, should ordinarily bear the costs of that litigation," [2] adding in conclusion, "It seems to me, therefore, that the costs of the application should be borne by the person who needlessly caused them to be incurred, namely the applicant." [3]

Related Research Articles

Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law that examined the relationship between the doctrine of equivalents and the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.

Patent prosecution describes the interaction between applicants and their representatives, and a patent office with regard to a patent, or an application for a patent. Broadly, patent prosecution can be split into pre-grant prosecution, which involves arguing before, and sometimes negotiation with, a patent office for the grant of a patent, and post-grant prosecution, which involves issues such as post-grant amendment and opposition.

<i>Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie</i> South African legal case

Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [2005] ZACC 19, is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in which the court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The judgment, authored by Justice Albie Sachs and delivered on 1 December 2005, gave Parliament one year to pass the necessary legislation. As a result, the Civil Union Act came into force on 30 November 2006, making South Africa the fifth country in the world to recognise same-sex marriage.

<i>A Human Being Died That Night</i>

A Human Being Died That Night is a 2003 book by Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela.

Legal financing is the mechanism or process through which litigants can finance their litigation or other legal costs through a third party funding company.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is an administrative tribunal in Ontario, Canada that hears and determines applications brought under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the provincial statute that sets out human or civil rights in Ontario prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a number of grounds in certain social areas. It is one of the 14 adjudicative tribunals overseen by the Ministry of the Attorney General that make up Tribunals Ontario. Any person who believes they have been discriminated against under the Human Rights Code may bring an application to the Tribunal.

Civil procedure in South Africa is the formal rules and standards that courts follow in that country when adjudicating civil suits. The legal realm is divided broadly into substantive and procedural law. Substantive law is that law which defines the contents of rights and obligations between legal subjects; procedural law regulates how those rights and obligations are enforced. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, and what kind of service of process is required, along with the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases, the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure, the conduct of trials, the process for judgment, various available remedies, and how the courts and clerks are to function.

Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Makin and Another is an important case in South African civil procedure: the leading case, in fact, on the question of how and when an urgent application may be brought. It was heard in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Coetzee J on December 13, 1976, and judgment handed down the following day. BEM du Toit appeared for the applicant; there was no appearance for the respondents. The case concerned an urgent application for an interdict and revolved around the question of what, exactly, urgency involves—specifically, when the established filing and sitting times of the court may be departed from. Coetzee J held that practitioners must carefully determine whether a greater or lesser degree of relaxation of the Rules and practice of the court is required.

K v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in the South African law of delict and South African constitutional law. It was heard by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2005, with judgment handed down on June 13. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J presided. W. Trengove SC appeared for the applicant; PF Louw SC appeared for the respondent. The applicant's counsel was instructed by the Women's Legal Centre, Cape Town. The respondent's attorney was the State Attorney, Johannesburg.

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters, an important case in the South African law of delict, was heard in the Constitutional Court on August 17, 2006. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Van Der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J and Kondile AJ presided, handing down judgment on November 30. W. Trengove SC and RT Williams SC appeared for the applicant, and HP Viljoen SC and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The State Attorneys, Cape Town, represented the applicant; the respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville.

Adfin (Pty) Ltd v Durable Engineering Works (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure. An application to set aside the respondent's combined summons as an irregular proceeding, it was heard in the Cape Provincial Division by Berman J on 16 February 1990. Judgment was handed down on 2 March. The applicant's attorneys were Saacks & Jaffe; the respondent's were Bornman & Hayward. E. Sakinofsky appeared for the applicant and LM Olivier for the respondent.

Soffiantini v Mould is an important case in South African law. An appeal from a decision of Back AJ, it was heard in the Eastern Districts Local Division by Price JP, Jennett J and Wynne J on July 30, 1956. Judgment was handed down on August 14, 1956. The appellant's attorneys were Espin & Espin. The respondent's attorney was LB Green. The case concerned the relationship between landlord and tenant, and confirmed that, under the common law, a landlord is not entitled to enter leased premises without consent. The trespassing landlord can be interdicted.

David Crouch Marketing CC v Du Plessis is an important case in South African labour law, with judgment handed down on June 17, 2009, the case having been heard on May 21, 2009. It was heard in the Labour Court in Johannesburg by Basson J. Snyman Attorneys represented the applicant; Mr Macartney of Macartney Attorneys appeared for the respondent. The case confirmed a legal principle.

Minister of Health and Welfare v Woodcarb (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African environmental law, heard in the Natal Provincial Division by Hurt J on March 29, 1995, with judgment handed down on December 15, 1995. Counsel for the applicant was CJ Hartzenberg SC ; DA Gordon SC appeared for the respondents. The applicant's attorney was the State Attorney; the respondents' attorneys were Venn, Nemeth & Hart.

Memory Institute SA CC t/a SA Memory Institute v Hansen and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judges were Harms JA, Schutz JA, Cameron JA, Conradie JA and Heher JA, who heard the case on May 8, 2003, handing down judgment on May 16, 2003. PJ Heymans appeared for the appellant; MH Wessels SC for the respondents.

Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane is an important case in South African law, heard in an Appellate Division comprising Botha JA, Smalberger JA, MT Steyn JA, FH Grosskopf JA and Nicholas AJA. The case was heard on November 5, 1990; judgment was delivered on November 30. The respondents' attorneys were SV Khampepe, Johannesburg, and EG Cooper & Sons, Bloemfontein. The appellants had the State Attorney.

Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope v Windvogel is an important case in South African law, in particular in the area of civil procedure.

Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure and trade marks.

<i>Drymiotis v Du Toit</i> South African legal case

Drymiotis v Du Toit is an important case in the South African law of lease, heard on September 3, 1968. The applicant's attorneys were Schwartz & Goldblatt; the respondent's were Vermaas & Kie. HJ Preiss appeared for the applicant; JJ Strydom appeared for the respondent.

Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board and Others is an important case in South African environmental law, heard on September 29, 1993.

References

Case law

Notes

  1. ↑ 1971 (1) SA 428 (T).
  2. ↑ 432B.
  3. ↑ 433A-B.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.