Kumba Iron Ore v Ansec 189 (7941/21) [2024] ZAGPJHC 100 (7 February 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 100
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 7941/21
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 7941/21
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, although Kumba's contribution to the main answering affidavit was less substantial than Rustenburg's, it was nonetheless meaningful. The common practice of preparing a main affidavit with a confirmatory affidavit is reasonable and facilitates efficient case management. The Taxing Mistress misdirected herself by disallowing all costs for Kumba, as Kumba's representatives were involved in the preparation of the answering papers. However, given the joint nature of the effort, only 20% of the disallowed items should be recoverable by Kumba. The review succeeds in part, and the costs are to be split accordingly.
Court disposition
Review succeeds in part; Kumba Iron Ore is allowed to recover 20% of the disallowed items in the bill of costs. Each party to carry its own costs in the review.
Orders
- The review succeeds in part.
- The Taxing Mistress is to allow Kumba Iron Ore 20% of items 25, 26, 27 and 40 and to finalize the allocatur accordingly.
- The parties are to carry their own costs in this review.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kumba Iron Ore
Applicant Counsel: Webber WentzelAnsec 189
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Item 25 (draft Answering Affidavit by H Coetzee) 20% Allowed: ZAR 1,377.6
- Item 26 (sort and Arrange Counsel's Brief and Instructions) 20% Allowed: ZAR 92
- Item 27 (consultation With Counsel and Third Respondent) 20% Allowed: ZAR 262.4
- Item 40 (peruse Account and Draw Cheque Counsel) 20% Allowed: ZAR 7,200
03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Kumba Iron Ore is entitled to recover costs for items 25, 26, 27 and 40 in the bill of costs after Ansec withdrew its application against Kumba.
- 02
Whether the Taxing Mistress erred in disallowing these items on the basis that Kumba did not contribute meaningfully to the answering affidavit.
- 03
What proportion of the disallowed costs should be recoverable by Kumba Iron Ore.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Kumba Iron Ore argued that the preparation of a main answering affidavit, supported by a confirmatory affidavit, is a reasonable and common practice. Kumba's representatives were involved in the preparation of the answering papers, and the joint effort with Rustenburg Platinum justified recovery of costs. Kumba sought that the disallowed items be allowed, as its contribution was meaningful.
- Respondent
- Ansec 189 opposed the review, contending that the bulk of the work related to Rustenburg Platinum and that Kumba's involvement was minimal, limited to a short confirmatory affidavit. Therefore, Kumba should not recover costs for the disallowed items, as it did not contribute meaningfully to the answering affidavit.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General practice in South African civil procedure
It is reasonable and common practice for parties represented by the same attorneys and counsel to prepare a main affidavit supported by a confirmatory affidavit, facilitating efficient case presentation.
- 02
Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of Court
Costs should be allocated in proportion to the meaningful contribution of each party to the preparation of joint papers.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, although Kumba's contribution to the main answering affidavit was less substantial than Rustenburg's, it was nonetheless meaningful. The common practice of preparing a main affidavit with a confirmatory affidavit is reasonable and facilitates efficient case management. The Taxing Mistress misdirected herself by disallowing all costs for Kumba, as Kumba's representatives were involved in the preparation of the answering papers. However, given the joint nature of the effort, only 20% of the disallowed items should be recoverable by Kumba. The review succeeds in part, and the costs are to be split accordingly.
Obiter and limits
- Had separate affidavits been presented, the attorneys may have faced accusations of unnecessarily inflating the papers.
- It was sensible to have one set of consultations for both Rustenburg and Kumba rather than two.
Court disposition
Review succeeds in part; Kumba Iron Ore is allowed to recover 20% of the disallowed items in the bill of costs. Each party to carry its own costs in the review.
- The review succeeds in part.
- The Taxing Mistress is to allow Kumba Iron Ore 20% of items 25, 26, 27 and 40 and to finalize the allocatur accordingly.
- The parties are to carry their own costs in this review.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 7941/21
1. Reportable: No
2. Of interest to other judges: No
3. Revised
In the matter between:
KUMBA
IRON ORE
APPLICANT FOR REVIEW
and
ANSEC 189 RESPONDENT
IN THE REVIEW
JUDGMENT REVIEW OF TAXATION - WRIGHT J
WRIGHT J
1. The applicant in the main application, Ansec launched an application against three respondents, Veriset, Rustenburg Platinum and Kumba Iron Ore. Both Rustenburg and Kumba are part of Anglo American.
2. Attorneys Webber Wentzel opposed on behalf of Rustenburg and Kumba. A main opposing affidavit was deposed to by an employee of Rustenburg who said in his affidavit that the legal submissions contained in his affidavit are those of the legal representatives for both Rustenburg and Kumba. He also said that where he deals with matters relating to Kumba, such allegations are confirmed in a short affidavit by a person employed by Kumba. A short confirmatory affidavit by a Kumba employee was delivered as part of the main answering affidavit.
3. Ansec later withdrew its application against Kumba and became obliged to pay Kumba’s taxed, party and party costs.
4. A bill of costs was presented by Webber Wentzel for Kumba. It was taxed.
5. The Taxing Mistress disallowed items 25, 26, 27 and 40.
6. Item 25 is “draft answering affidavit by H Coetzee, [the Rustenburg employee] – R6 888.” This a fee sought by Webber Wentzel.
7. Item 26 is “sort and arrange counsel’s brief and short instructions therewith – R460.“ This is a fee sought by Webber Wentzel.
8. Item 27 is “Consultation with counsel and third respondent – discuss and take instructions – 1 hour – R1 312.“ This is a fee sought by Webber Wentzel.
9. Item 40 is “peruse account and draw cheque - counsel – R36 000. “ This is a disbursement by Webber Wentzel, paying counsel.
10. In short, the Taxing Mistress took the view that the bulk of the work done in finalising the answering affidavit related to Rustenburg and that because only a short confirmatory affidavit by an employee of Kumba was filed, Kumba could not recover the costs taxed off and relating to the answering affidavit. The Taxing Mistress found that Kumba had not contributed meaningfully to the answering affidavit.
11. Before me now is a review of taxation under Rule 48, Kumba seeking that the items referred to be allowed. The Taxing Mistress abides my decision but Ansec opposes the review.
12. It may be that the bulk of the allegations in the main answering affidavit relate more directly to Rustenburg than to Kumba but in my view, the common practice of preparing a main affidavit, supported by a confirmatory affidavit is reasonable. It makes the reading of the papers far easier for the other side and for the judge to whom the case is allocated. It means that the case is presented once, rather than twice. Rustenburg and Kumba are in the same stable, have the same attorney and counsel and in these circumstances, life is made easier for all concerned for the answering papers to have been presented as they were. Had separate affidavits been presented, Webber Wentzel may have faced an accusation that they had unnecessarily inflated the papers. It was sensible to have one set of consultations for both Rustenburg and Kumba rather than two.
13. Webber Wentzel confirms in the review papers that Kumba’s representatives were at all times involved in the preparation of the answering papers.
14. In my view, the Taxing Mistress misdirected herself in finding that Kumba failed meaningfully to contribute to the main answering affidavit. Kumba’s contribution was meaningful although substantially less than that of Rustenburg.
15. In my view, the review succeeds but only to the extent of recovery of 20% of the items disallowed. Given that the answering affidavit was really a joint effort for Rustenburg and Kumba, it would be fair that the costs be split between these two litigants at the ratio of 20% for Kumba.
16. Kumba did not seek costs in the review. In any event, in my view, Ansec and Kumba should carry their own costs in this review. The partial success of Kumba translates into very few rands.
ORDER
1. The review succeeds in part.
2. The Taxing Mistress is to allow Kumba Iron Ore 20% of items 25, 26, 27 and 40 and to finalize the allocatur accordingly.
3. The parties are to carry their own costs in this review.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
CONSIDERED IN CHAMBERS 7 February 2024
DELIVERED:
7 February 2024
APPEARANCES:
None (On paper)
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.