Dr AB Xuma Local Municipality and Another v Local Residents (Consolidated under Case No 988/2023) and Another

The Dr AB Xuma Local Municipality and its Municipal Manager applied for rescission of a prior judgment. When the rescission application was enrolled as an opposed motion on 21 November 2024, it became apparent that the court file was incomplete and not properly collated or paginated, contrary to the Uniform Rules of Court and the Joint Rules of Practice of the Eastern Cape Division. At the applicant’s instance, the matter was removed from the roll. The respondents did not oppose the removal but sought an order that the applicant pay the wasted costs occasioned by the removal. The applicant resisted a costs order, contending that costs should stand over or that there be no order as to costs. The court removed the matter from the roll and ordered the applicant to pay the costs occasioned by the removal. The applicants thereafter requested reasons, limited to the costs order.

The rescission application was removed from the roll, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the removal of the matter from the roll.

The judgment reinforces the strict and peremptory nature of Uniform Rule 62(4) and the Joint Rules of Practice in the Eastern Cape Division, emphasising litigants’ duties to ensure that court files are properly prepared. It affirms the principle that a party seeking an indulgence, such as removal from the roll due to its own non-compliance, will ordinarily be mulcted in costs. The case underscores judicial intolerance for poor litigation preparation and promotes procedural discipline in motion proceedings.