Winlite Aluminium Windows & Doors (Pty) Ltd v Pyramid Freight (Pty) Ltd t/a UTI

Pyramid Freight sued Winlite Aluminium Windows & Doors in the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division (exercising Admiralty Jurisdiction) for payment of outstanding freight, cleaning and forwarding fees, storage and preservation expenses, together with interest. Winlite defended the action and counterclaimed for damages arising from alleged wrongful withholding of goods and consequent losses. During the trial, Winlite made a secret tender under Uniform Rule 34(1) and (5) offering R250 000 in full and final settlement, inclusive of costs. The trial continued and judgment was ultimately granted in favour of Pyramid for amounts exceeding the tender once capital and accrued interest were taken into account. After being notified of the tender, the trial judge reconsidered the costs under Rule 34(12) and ordered a split costs arrangement. Pyramid successfully appealed the costs order to the Full Court, and Winlite appealed further to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The Full Court’s order stood, with the result that Pyramid was entitled to its costs of the action.

The case clarifies the proper approach to secret tenders under Uniform Rule 34, particularly that a tender must be measured against the total claim, including accrued interest, at the time it is made. It reinforces the principle that a plaintiff who successfully beats a tender is ordinarily entitled to costs and underscores the limited discretion courts have when reconsidering costs under Rule 34(12).