HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND
Case No. 3198/2001
S.B. MAPHALALA – J
the Plaintiff MR. B. MAGAGULA
the Defendant MR. P. DUNSEITH
court is an enquiry in terms of Rule 45 13 (i) of the High Court
Rules. When the matter was called Mr. Dunseith made an application
that this case be consolidated with Case No. 221/2002 where the
Defendant also features. The motivation behind the application was
that the matters are substantially the same and this would curtail
Magagula opposed the consolidation of these issues and I agreed with
him in this regard. I ruled that the cases be determined separately.
As a result Mr. Dunseith had
apply for a postponement to a future date. Mr, Magagula did not
oppose the application per se but applied for wasted costs of that
reserve my ruling on costs. Following is my judgment on costs.
to Herbstein et al, The Civil Practice of the Supreme Court of South
Africa, (4th ed) at page 703 in fin 704 "the award of costs is a
matter wholly within the discretion of the court. But this is a
judicial discretion and must be exercised on grounds upon which a
reasonable man could have come to the conclusion arrived at".
the facts of this case my considered view is that it would be fair
and equitable that costs be costs in the course, and it is so