Mandoloma & Another v Sedom (MSCA Civil Cause 37 of 1994) [1995] MWHCCiv 6 (18 April 1995)
The taxing master is entitled to tax off items from the bill where there is non-compliance with the Rules of the Supreme Court. Care and conduct were assessed at 50% for all items, and specific amounts were granted based on examination of the record.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1995] MWHCCiv 6
- Parties
- Appellant: B. J. Mandoloma; Appellant: H. P. Chiwaya; Respondent: Sedom
- Court
- High Court of Malawi Civil Division
- Jurisdiction
- Malawi
- Case Number
- MSCA Civil Cause 37 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Cause / Taxation of Costs
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's bill taxed and specific amounts granted.
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Non Compliance With Rules
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
B. J. Mandoloma
Appellant
H. P. Chiwaya
Appellant
Sedom
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Cause / Taxation of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether non-compliance with Rules of the Supreme Court entitles the taxing master to tax off items from the bill
- 2 Proper assessment of care and conduct in taxation of costs
Ratio Decidendi
The taxing master is entitled to tax off items from the bill where there is non-compliance with the Rules of the Supreme Court. Care and conduct were assessed at 50% for all items, and specific amounts were granted based on examination of the record.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's bill taxed and specific amounts granted.
Orders
- Plaintiff granted K17,640 on Part A.
- Plaintiff granted K8,820 on Part B.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF :MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY MSCA CIVIL CAUSE NO. 37 OF 1994 BETWEEN: B. J. MANDOLOMA and H. P. CHIWAYA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPP ELLANTS and SEDOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESP ONDENTS CO RAM: E. B. TWEA, REGISTRAR Chisambiro, Counsel for the Appellants ·- Counse l for the Respondent, absent . RULING I h a ve examined the record and submissions of cou nsel on the taxation of the plaintiffs' bill. I did agr ee with counsel for the defendant that non-compliance with the Ru l es of the Supreme Court would entitle the taxing master to tax off some of the bill. I have There was mostly agreement on most examined the bill item by item after examination . Where I fi nd that the plaintiff had no right to suc ceed, I taxed off the whole item . After due examination of Part A, I allowed generally 50\ for care and conduct on all items. After examination of the record I noted that on some days court sat half day or not at all. At the end of i t al l I granted the plaintiff K17,640 on Par t A. i terns and On p art B, I granted 50%, which comes to KB,820. On Item C, pl ai ntiff K38 ,845 as K20,812 in all. I granted K12, 385. taxed cost. In all I gran ted the tax ed off I have Pronounced in Chambers this 18th day of Apri l 1 995, at Blantyre. ~ EB 'l'wea REGISTRAR