HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND
SERVICES SWAZILAND (PTY) LTD
& B TRANSPORT (PTY) LTD
Case No. 2276/2002
S.B. MAPHALALA – J
the Plaintiff MR. J. HENWOOD
the Defendant MR. B. G. MDLULI
This matter came before me in the uncontested roll of the 19th
November 2004, where it was removed from the roll by consent of the
parties. Mr. Henwood who appeared for the Plaintiff applied for
wasted costs of the day. Mr. Mdluli on the other hand argued au
contraire and implored the Court to order costs to be in the course.
Mr. Henwood argued that the Plaintiff issued a notice in terms of
Rule 35 (1), to compel discovery as far back as the 28th September
2004 and yet Defendant only responded to such Notice on the 15th
November 2004, and thus bringing Plaintiff to Court unnecessarily.
Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to a costs order.
It is a trite principle that the award of costs is a matter wholly
within the discretion of Court (see Herbstein Van Winsen, The Civil
Practice of the Supreme Court of South Africa, 4th ed at page 701 and
the cases cited thereat).
In the circumstances of the present case I would order that costs to
be costs in the course.