Bosch v Van Vuuren - LexisNexis South Africa

3144 Turning to the issue of costs, the Applicant has clearly achievedsubstantial success and the normal rule would indicate that he isentitled to his costs.I am however mindful of the growingtendency in matters of this kind for the Court not to make anyaward of costs, provided it is satisfied that the parties have actedbona fide with due regard to what they considered to be theinterests of the minor child or children involved. Having re-readthe papers and having considered the matter as a whole(including the arguments addressed to the Court), I am of theview that the Respondent’s opposition was wholly misguided tothe point of being vexatious. By this I do not mean to say thatthe Respondent did not genuinely believe in the merits of hercase. On the contrary, I use the term “vexatious” in the sense inwhich it has been applied in our Courts – that is to say, that thearguments proffered were utterly without merit, in particularhaving regard to the state of the law at this time. In this regard,I confirm that I repeatedly asked Respondent’s counsel whetheror not he was able to refer me to any authority for theinterpretation which the Respondent sought to place on Section21 of the Act, and that he was unable to do so. Indeed, theauthorities which I was referred to in that context all pre-datedthe Act and were accordingly not relevant given the ground-shift