claims. Case Nos. 75958 and 75961 represent appeals by the plaintiffs from the latter ruling, while Case Nos. 75959, 75960, 75962, and 75963 represent separate cross-appeals by the defendants from the former rul ing. Held: 1. The validity of a renewal action filed pursuant to OCGA § 9-2-61 (a) is contingent upon compliance with OCGA § 9-11-41 (d), which provides as follows: “Cost of previously dismissed action. If a plaintiff who has dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the plaintiff shall first pay the court costs of the action previously dismissed.” (Textual emphasis supplied.) See Little v. Walker, 250 Ga. 854 (301 SE2d 639) (1983). See also Tucker v. Mitchell, 252 Ga. 545 (314 SE2d 896) (1984) (<HOLDING>). In reliance on such recent decisions as Hiley
holding that laches is an affirmative defense holding that the exclusivity of workers compensation is an affirmative statutory defense which must be timely raised or it is waived holding that fair use is an affirmative defense holding that payment of costs in a dismissed action is not an affirmative defense but a jurisdictional matter which may never be waived holding that exhaustion requirement in bj997ea is an affirmative defense that may be waived or forfeited