Judgment No. SC 18/18 Civil Appeal No. 137/16 7. Save and except for the fourth respondent whose costs of suit shall be borne by the first and second respondents, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, each party shall bear its own costs”. (emphasis added) It is clear from the court a quo’s orders that some of the orders it granted had not been sought by either party. It is also clear that parties had not made submissions for or against those orders. They were granted mero motu by the court a quo. It did so without seeking the parties’ views on those orders. There is no doubt that the court a quo exceeded its mandate which was to determine the issues placed before it by the parties through pleadings and proved by the evidence led. The function of a court is to determine disputes placed before it by the parties. It cannot go on a frolic of its own. Where a point of law or a factual issue exercises the court’s mind but has not been raised by the parties or addressed by them either in their pleadings in evidence or in submissions from the bar, the court is at liberty to put the question to the parties and ask them to make submissions on the matter. In Welkom Municipality v Masureik and Herman T/A Lotus Corp 1997 (3) SA 363 at 371 G-H Marais JA commenting on what the court should base its decision on said: “I should add that whether or not South Africa did or did not fail to do so is a question of fact upon which there was no evidence before the court a quo, and for reasons too obvious to require enumeration, the learned Judge was not entitled to enquire into this issue of fact after reserving judgment and without any reference to the parties, and then to decide it. Compare Kauesa v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 1996 (4) SA 965 (NmS) at 973H – 974C.” (emphasis added) 11