KET Civils CC and Others v MEC: Department of Roads and Public Works, Northern Cape Province and Others (2124/2018) [2020] ZANCHC 65 (7 August 2020)

KET Civils CC and Others v MEC: Department of Roads and Public Works, Northern Cape Province and Others (2124/2018) [2020] ZANCHC 65 (7 August 2020)

The court found that the taxing master was clearly wrong in allowing costs beyond those incurred on 07 September 2018, as the order was limited to 'costs of today', which refers to wasted costs occasioned by the striking off of the urgent application. The taxing master also erred in allowing costs for two sets of attorneys, as the MEC's business address was within the seat of the court, and thus only one set of attorneys should have been allowed. Furthermore, the taxing master incorrectly allowed attorney and client costs and VAT, contrary to the court order and without sufficient basis. The applicants' absence from the taxation did not constitute a waiver of their right to review. The...

Citation
[2020] ZANCHC 65
Parties
Applicant: KET Civils CC; Applicant: Razzmatazz Civil (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Asatico Civil and Construction (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: MEC: Department of Roads and Public Works, Northern Cape Province; Respondent: Down Touch Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Department of Roads and Public Works, Northern Cape Province; Respondent: Head of Department of Roads and Public Works, Northern Cape Province
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2020
Case Number
2124/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of Court
Outcome
The review succeeded. The allocaturs for the fees and disbursements due to Van de Wall Incorporated and Peyper Attorneys were set aside. The matter was referred back to the taxing master for proper taxation limited to wasted costs and one set of attorneys. The MEC was ordered to pay the costs of the taxation review.
Judges
M C Mamosebo
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, Costs Awards, Party and Party Costs, Wasted Costs, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Review of Taxation Costs Awards Party and Party Costs Wasted Costs Attorney and Client 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KET Civils CC

Applicant

Razzmatazz Civil (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Asatico Civil and Construction (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

MEC: Department of Roads and Public Works, Northern Cape Province

Respondent

Down Touch Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Department of Roads and Public Works, Northern Cape Province

Respondent

Head of Department of Roads and Public Works, Northern Cape Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing master exceeded her powers by allowing costs beyond those incurred on 07 September 2018.
  2. 2 Whether the MEC was entitled to recover costs for two sets of attorneys.
  3. 3 Whether costs could be awarded on a scale other than party and party.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the taxing master was clearly wrong in allowing costs beyond those incurred on 07 September 2018, as the order was limited to 'costs of today', which refers to wasted costs occasioned by the striking off of the urgent application. The taxing master also erred in allowing costs for two sets of attorneys, as the MEC's business address was within the seat of the court, and thus only one set of attorneys should have been allowed. Furthermore, the taxing master incorrectly allowed attorney and client costs and VAT, contrary to the court order and without sufficient basis. The applicants' absence from the taxation did not constitute a waiver of their right to review. The...

Court Disposition

The review succeeded. The allocaturs for the fees and disbursements due to Van de Wall Incorporated and Peyper Attorneys were set aside. The matter was referred back to the taxing master for proper taxation limited to wasted costs and one set of attorneys. The MEC was ordered to pay the costs of the taxation review.

Orders

  • The allocaturs of the fees and disbursements due to Van de Wall Incorporated and Peyper Attorneys are hereby set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the taxing master with leave to the first respondent's (MEC's) attorney to draw up one account for services rendered real and essential, on the basis of an instruction to one set of attorneys, and to submit this account to the taxing master for taxation.