Mabando v Law Society of the Northern Province (59003/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 98 (20 May 2011)

Mabando v Law Society of the Northern Province (59003/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 98 (20 May 2011)

The court found that the Taxing Master correctly exercised discretion in allowing costs for perusal of the documents under item 10, as these documents were both important and material to the respondent's case. The documents, although not annexed to affidavits, were necessary for the respondent to properly oppose the review application. The principles from relevant case law support the inclusion of such costs where the documents are essential for the attainment of justice. Accordingly, the Taxing Master's allocatur dated 17 January 2011 in respect of item 10 is confirmed and the applicant's objection is dismissed.

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 98
Parties
Applicant: Kashan Ramokoka Mabando; Respondent: The Law Society of the Northern Province
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2011
Case Number
59003/2009
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48
Outcome
The applicant's objection to item 10 of the Bill of Costs is dismissed and the Taxing Master's allocatur is confirmed.
Judges
Makgoba
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review Under Rule 48, Perusal of Documents
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review Under Rule 48 Perusal of Documents

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kashan Ramokoka Mabando

Applicant

The Law Society of the Northern Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master correctly allowed costs for perusal of documents under item 10 of the Bill of Costs.
  2. 2 Whether the bundle of documents attached to the transcribed record of proceedings formed part of the proceedings and were necessary for the attainment of justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Taxing Master correctly exercised discretion in allowing costs for perusal of the documents under item 10, as these documents were both important and material to the respondent's case. The documents, although not annexed to affidavits, were necessary for the respondent to properly oppose the review application. The principles from relevant case law support the inclusion of such costs where the documents are essential for the attainment of justice. Accordingly, the Taxing Master's allocatur dated 17 January 2011 in respect of item 10 is confirmed and the applicant's objection is dismissed.

Court Disposition

The applicant's objection to item 10 of the Bill of Costs is dismissed and the Taxing Master's allocatur is confirmed.

Orders

  • The Taxing Master's allocatur dated 17 January 2011 in respect of item 10 is confirmed.
  • The applicant's objection is dismissed.