Likhojane and Another v Mabena (A75/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 37 (25 February 2016)

Likhojane and Another v Mabena (A75/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 37 (25 February 2016)

The court held that the applicants' attorneys acted reasonably and in the interests of their clients by obtaining and perusing the record from the court to prepare for the appeal, despite the respondent's attorneys failing to serve the record as required by Rule 50(7)(d) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The fact that the appeal was withdrawn only thirteen days before the hearing did not negate the necessity of such preparation. The court found that the taxing master's decision to tax off the perusal fees was incorrect, as legal practitioners should not be penalised for taking steps to avoid unnecessary delays and to ensure expeditious finalisation of matters. The court emphasised that...

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 37
Parties
Applicant: Manau Jan Likhojane; Applicant: Josephine Maliphofu Likhojane; Respondent: Mpho Mabena
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2016
Case Number
A75/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Decision After Taxation of Costs in Appeal Proceedings
Outcome
The review application is granted; the taxing master's decision is set aside.
Judges
Phalatsi
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Perusal Fee, Appeal Record Service, Withdrawal of Appeal
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Perusal Fee Appeal Record Service Withdrawal of Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manau Jan Likhojane

Applicant

Josephine Maliphofu Likhojane

Applicant

Mpho Mabena

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Decision After Taxation of Costs in Appeal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants' attorneys and counsel are entitled to perusal fees for the record of appeal when the record was not served by the respondent's attorneys.
  2. 2 Whether the taxing master's decision to tax off certain items from the applicants' attorneys' bills was correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants' attorneys acted reasonably and in the interests of their clients by obtaining and perusing the record from the court to prepare for the appeal, despite the respondent's attorneys failing to serve the record as required by Rule 50(7)(d) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The fact that the appeal was withdrawn only thirteen days before the hearing did not negate the necessity of such preparation. The court found that the taxing master's decision to tax off the perusal fees was incorrect, as legal practitioners should not be penalised for taking steps to avoid unnecessary delays and to ensure expeditious finalisation of matters. The court emphasised that...

Court Disposition

The review application is granted; the taxing master's decision is set aside.

Orders

  • The taxing master's ruling in taxing off items 5, 6 and 18 of the bill of Messrs Lovius Block and items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Messrs Cloete Neveling's bill is set aside.
  • All the items referred to above are allowed.