Spinks v Spinks

The applicant (plaintiff) and respondent (defendant) were former partners involved in a dispute concerning ownership and financial contributions relating to an immovable property in Gqeberha. The plaintiff sought to be declared the beneficial owner of the entire property, alternatively tendered payment to acquire the defendant’s half share. The defendant counterclaimed for cancellation of an oral agreement, termination of joint ownership, payment of nearly R2 million, and costs. After judgment in the main matter, the court made a costs order. Subsequently, the plaintiff applied for reconsideration of that costs order under Rule 34(12), relying on a without-prejudice settlement tender of R645 000 made three days before trial, which the defendant rejected.

The application for reconsideration of the costs order was dismissed with costs.

The case clarifies the strict compliance required when litigants elect to rely on Rule 34 settlement offers for purposes of costs, particularly where plaintiffs act as defendants in reconvention. It reinforces that conditional or non-compliant tenders cannot ground a reconsideration of costs, even if rejection of the tender appears unreasonable.