The first respondent sought costs on the legal practitioner and client scale in its papers. However, it failed to motivate why the applicants should be mulcted by an award of costs on a higher scale.It is not suggested, that, the applicants are guilty of vexatious conduct or that the application ...
The first respondent sought costs on the legal practitioner and client scale in its papers. However, it failed to motivate why the applicants should be mulcted by an award of costs on a higher scale.
It is not suggested, that, the applicants are guilty of vexatious conduct or that the application is frivolous.
I see no reason to deviate from the general approach in constitutional matters, that is, that no party should be penalised with an order of costs, save in exceptional circumstances. No such special circumstances as would justify an order of costs, even on the ordinary scale, are evident in this matter....,.
The application is struck off the roll with no order as to costs.
