Costs awards are never the most exciting part of a judgment, but nevertheless have enormous significance in terms of their repercussions. This is particularly so when a litigant is a community living in poverty or a non-governmental organisation (NGO) acting in the public interest. In this context, the recent judgment in South African History Archive Trust (SAHA) v South African Reserve Bank (SARB) requires examination, as it contains a costs award against SAHA that, if allowed to stand, may bankrupt the NGO. This article will therefore introduce the case, examine the existing principles applicable to costs awards arising primarily out of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, and then try to understand what possible reasons might have motivated the costs award in this case.

中文翻译：

---

一个代价高昂的错误：南非历史档案信托基金诉南非储备银行

成本裁决从来都不是判决中最令人兴奋的部分，但就其影响而言，却具有巨大的意义。当诉讼当事人是生活在贫困中的社区或为公共利益行事的非政府组织 (NGO) 时尤其如此。在这种情况下，最近在南非历史档案信托 (SAHA) 诉南非储备银行 (SARB) 案中的判决需要审查，因为它包含针对 SAHA 的费用裁决，如果允许其成立，可能会使非政府组织破产。因此，本文将介绍此案，考察主要由宪法法院判例产生的适用于费用裁决的现有原则，然后尝试了解在本案中可能有哪些原因促使费用裁决。