Case CCT 290/24
[2025] ZACC 05
Judgement Date: 24 April 2025
Post Judgment Media Summary
The following explanatory note is provided to assist the media in reporting this case and is not binding on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.
Thursday, 24 March 2025 at 09h00, the Constitutional Court handed down a unanimous judgment authored by Rogers J in an application for leave to appeal concerning a punitive costsorder made against the applicant by the High Court, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg. The matter was decided without a hearing.
The High Court granted a joinder order in favour of the applicant, who wanted to join the first respondent to its application for damages. Despite being successful, the High Court granted a costs order against the applicant on the attorney and client scale. The applicant sought leave to appeal the punitive costs order in the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal but was refused. The applicant then approached the Constitutional Court and sought to appeal the punitive costs order on the basis that the High Court provided no reasons for its order.
The Court held that the matter engages its constitutional jurisdiction. This is because where a costs order does not follow the general rule applicable to a situation, a court must give reasons for its order. This is part of the rule of law and has implications relating to section 34 of the Constitution.
On the merits, the Constitutional Court held that it cannot know whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in relation to the costs order. Assuming the Constitutional Court can have regard to the transcript of the High Court proceedings, the Court found the High Court did not properly explain the costs order and the High Court’s concerns regarding the applicant’s attorney’s conduct did not, in any event, justify a punitive costs order against the applicant.
The Constitutional Court thus granted leave to appeal and found in favour of the applicant, ordering costs against the first respondent.
The Full judgment here