Standard Bank of Swaziland ltd v DN General Engineering Suppliers and Others; Standard Bank of Swaziland ltd v DN General Engineering Suppliers and Other (76/07/01) (1076 of 2007) [2006] SZHC 1 (12 June 2006)

HELD AT MBABANE CASE NO. 1076/07

In the matter between

STANDARD BANK OF SWAZILAND LTD APPLICANT

And

D.N. GENERAL ENGINEERING

SUPPLIERS 1^ST RESPONDENT

WISEMAN DLAMINI 2^ND RESPONDENT

DANIEL NKAMBULE 3^RD RESPONDENT

NOMTHANDAZO NKAMBULE 4^TH RESPONDENT

In re:

STANDARD BANK OF SWAZILAND LTD PLAINTIFF

and

D.N. GENERAL ENGINEERING

SUPPLIERS 1^ST DEFENDANT

WISEMAN DLAMINI 2^ND DEFENDANT

DANIEL NKAMBULE 3^RD DEFENDANT

NOMTHANDAZO NKAMBULE 4^TH DEFENDANT

CORAM Q.M. MABUZA-J

FOR THE APPLICANT : MR. MDLADLA

FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. MKHWANAZI

JUDGMENT 12/06/07

[1] The facts herein are that Mr. Mdladla for the Applicant obtained a rule nisi by consent on the 29/3/07 which remained alive because of several extensions until the 27/4/07 whereby it lapsed because there was no Court session on that day.

[2] Mr. Mkhwanazi pursued his clients writ during the duration of the lapse.

[3] Mr. Mdladla on the other hand brought an urgent ex parte application on 7/5/07 for the revival of the rule which was indeed revived and extended to the 18/05/07.

[4] Upon receipt of the court order, Mr. Mkhwanazi set the matter down for the 14/5/07 withstanding the return date of the 18/5/03.

[5] There are a lot of issues in between the issues which I do not intend to go into.

[6] When the matter came before me I extended the rule sine die pending my ruling.

[7] The problem as far as I can glean from the papers is that Mr. Mdladla has complaints that the bill of costs in High Court Case No. 767/06 was taxed without notice to him and yet it included certain items which should have not have been included and as a result the Respondents would be unduly enriched.

[8] There seems to be substance in this complaint. Mr. Mkhwanazi on the other hand states that he did send a notice in terms of rule 68 as read with the Taxing Masters directive calling upon the Applicants within 4 days upon service upon them of the notice and the accompanying bill of costs to scrutinize the bill and to decide which items would be opposed. There was no response from Mr. Mdladla’s offices and so Mr. Mkhwanazi went ahead set the bill down and taxed it. He did not however, send the notice of set down to Mr. Mdladla.

[9] As the matter has been defended from the onset Mr. Mkhwanazi should have sent the notice of set down. I can on the other hand understand Mr. Mkhwanazi’s vexation. This matter has not been well handled by Mr. Mdladla offices from the outset. The Applicants are not very far from Mr. Mdladla offices for him to take instructions whenever he needs to do so.

[10] I wish to put closure to this matter and do not intend to go into collateral issues.

[11] In the event I order as follows:

(a) The writ of Execution herein is set aside.

(b) The bill of costs is to be referred to the

Registrar for re-taxing and notice of set down therefor should be served on the Applicants attorneys. A new writ to issue thereafter should applicants not pay in terms of the re-taxed bill.

(c) I order that each party pay its own costs. The rule nisi is hereby discharged.

Q.M. MABUZA -J