South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

Case number: 59301/2014

Date: 24/04/2015

NOT REPORTABLE

NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES

In the matter between:

TRUVELO MANUFACTURERS (PTY) LTD.........................................................................APPLICANT

And

ROJEAN HATTINGH.....................................................................................................1^ST RESPONDENT

RODNEY HATTINGH.....................................................................................................2^nd RESPONDENT

MORKEL & KRAUSE RIFLE MAKERS

JOHANNESBURG (PTY) LTD.......................................................................................3^rd RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

PRETORIUS J.

[1] An urgent application was launched due to the respondents contravening a restraint of trade agreement. On 30 September 2014 the matter was postponed to 24 October 2014. On 24 October 2014 the respondents gave comprehensive undertakings which were incorporated into the court order by agreement and costs were reserved.

[2] This court heard the costs argument and has to decide which party should pay the costs. It is clear from the merits of the case that the applicant had requested undertakings from the respondents prior to launching the application. The respondents chose not to give such undertakings and therefor the applicant had no choice, but to launch an application to enforce the restraint of trade.

[3] Due to the fact that the applicant was successful in that the respondents gave certain undertakings, costs would normally follow the outcome. The applicant is requesting costs for 2 October 2014, when the undertaking by the respondents was made an order of court, and the costs of the present application.

[4] The respondent, when giving the undertaking, set out: “We confirm that the matter as to costs of the present litigation be reserved ”

[5] I have considered all the arguments, read the papers and am not persuaded by the respondents that costs should not follow the outcome. The applicant conceded that it will only be asking costs for 2 October 2014 and the present application.

[6] Therefor I make the following order:

1. The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of 2 October 2014;

2. The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application.

Judge C Pretorius

Case number: 59301/2014

Application heard on: 14 April 2015

For the Applicant: Adv. AA BOTHA

Instructed by: DE BEER JANSE VAN VUUREN INC

For the Respondent: Adv. AJ SWANEPOEL

Instructed by: VOGEL INCORPORATED

Date of Judgment: 24 April 2015