Maseka v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (443/06) [2010] ZANWHC 13 (1 January 2010)

Maseka v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (443/06) [2010] ZANWHC 13 (1 January 2010)

The court held that the review of the taxing master's decision is limited to items objected to during taxation. The applicant's objections to the bills of costs, particularly regarding the appointment of two firms of attorneys and alleged duplication of fees, were considered. The court found that Rooth & Wessels were properly instructed as attorneys for the Law Society, with Minchin & Kelly acting as local correspondents, and that the employment of both was necessary given the Law Society's location in Pretoria and the seat of the court in Mafikeng. The taxing master correctly allowed fees for perusal and other services by both attorneys where justified, but should have applied the...

Citation
[2010] ZANWHC 13
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Tapedi Maseka; Respondent: Law Society of the Northern Provinces
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 January 2010
Case Number
443/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Taxation
Outcome
Application for review of taxation partially succeeds; certain items in Minchin & Kelly's bill set aside and remitted for reassessment; Rooth & Wessels's allocatur confirmed; costs awarded to respondent.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Taxing Master, Party and Party Costs, Attorney and Client Fees
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review of Taxing Master Party and Party Costs Attorney and Client Fees

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

Parties

Jacobus Tapedi Maseka

Applicant

Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Taxation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the items objected to in the bills of costs were properly taxed by the taxing master.
  2. 2 Whether both instructing and local attorneys were entitled to charge for perusal and other fees.
  3. 3 Whether certain items in the bills of costs constituted unnecessary duplication of fees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the review of the taxing master's decision is limited to items objected to during taxation. The applicant's objections to the bills of costs, particularly regarding the appointment of two firms of attorneys and alleged duplication of fees, were considered. The court found that Rooth & Wessels were properly instructed as attorneys for the Law Society, with Minchin & Kelly acting as local correspondents, and that the employment of both was necessary given the Law Society's location in Pretoria and the seat of the court in Mafikeng. The taxing master correctly allowed fees for perusal and other services by both attorneys where justified, but should have applied the...

Court Disposition

Application for review of taxation partially succeeds; certain items in Minchin & Kelly's bill set aside and remitted for reassessment; Rooth & Wessels's allocatur confirmed; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • The fee for item 45 (R450) in Minchin & Kelly's bill of costs is disallowed.
  • Fees for items 1–4, 11–13, 18, 20–22, 24, 26, 31, 43, 39–40, 44, 50, 55, 64–66, 71, 74, 79, 83–84, 86, 91–92, 101, 103, 110, 115, 132, 139–141, 145, 147–150 in Minchin & Kelly's bill are set aside and remitted to the taxing master for reassessment.