Judgment No. 7/2018 Civil Application No. SC 409/2016 He pointed out that the court had the discretion whether or not to stay the proceedings pending payment of the first respondent’s taxed costs. There is merit in that submission. The applicant’s attitude that the respondent should proceed with execution against his property evinces a mind set on piling wasted costs on the respondent. I come to that conclusion because he has advanced no reason why he cannot voluntarily sell his property to liquidate his liability to the respondent without incurring further costs for execution. That attitude gives credence to Mr Mpofu’s submission that it is unfair for the applicant to continuously bring proceedings against the first respondent without paying respondent’s wasted costs awarded by the court a quo. Considering that money may be hard to come by I held back delivering judgment in this application to give the applicant time to pay the outstanding wasted costs. I am in agreement with Mr Mpofu that it would be manifestly unfair and unjust for the applicant to continue piling proceedings on the 1 st respondent without first making good the wasted taxed costs he caused the respondent to incur. In my considered view this may be meant to wear down the respondent with costs. It is now more than 15 months since the applicant was granted the opportunity to pay the respondent’s wasted costs. If by now he has not paid the respondent’s wasted costs, 3