Bothma v Bothma (4182/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 80 (8 November 2021)

Bothma v Bothma (4182/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 80 (8 November 2021)

The court found that the Taxing Master was clearly wrong in taxing the plaintiff's bill on an attorney and own client scale when the court order did not specify a punitive costs order. The wasted costs order was for the day, entitling the plaintiff to a full day's fee, and the Taxing Master had no discretion to reduce this based on time spent in court. The Taxing Master also erred in allowing costs for a second attorney and for uplifting the court order. Both parties successfully challenged the Taxing Master's rulings, and the entire allocation was set aside. The matter was referred for taxation afresh before another Taxing Master.

Citation
[2021] ZALMPPHC 80
Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Bothma; Defendant: Lindy Bothma
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2021
Case Number
4182/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Allocation Under Rule 48
Outcome
Review upheld; Taxing Master's allocation set aside in its entirety; matter referred for taxation afresh before another Taxing Master; no order as to costs.
Judges
Kganyago
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Wasted Costs, Attorney and Own Client Scale, Party and Party Scale, Review of Taxing Master, Postponement Costs
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Wasted Costs Attorney and Own Client Scale Party and Party Scale Review of Taxing Master Postponement Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Bothma

Plaintiff

Lindy Bothma

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Allocation Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master erred in taxing the plaintiff's bill of costs on an attorney and own client scale without a specific punitive costs order.
  2. 2 Whether the Taxing Master correctly exercised discretion regarding preparation and attendance fees claimed by the plaintiff's attorneys.
  3. 3 Whether the costs claimed for the second attorney's bill and for uplifting the court order were properly allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Taxing Master was clearly wrong in taxing the plaintiff's bill on an attorney and own client scale when the court order did not specify a punitive costs order. The wasted costs order was for the day, entitling the plaintiff to a full day's fee, and the Taxing Master had no discretion to reduce this based on time spent in court. The Taxing Master also erred in allowing costs for a second attorney and for uplifting the court order. Both parties successfully challenged the Taxing Master's rulings, and the entire allocation was set aside. The matter was referred for taxation afresh before another Taxing Master.

Court Disposition

Review upheld; Taxing Master's allocation set aside in its entirety; matter referred for taxation afresh before another Taxing Master; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The review by both plaintiff and defendant is upheld.
  • The Taxing Master's allocation is set aside in its entirety.