Monyepao v Ledwaba and Others (1368/18) [2020] ZASCA 71 (19 June 2020)

Monyepao v Ledwaba and Others (1368/18) [2020] ZASCA 71 (19 June 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the majority of the record submitted for the appeal was irrelevant and should not have been included. The appellant's attorney was responsible for filing the defective record and failed to comply with the court's requirements. The first respondent's attorney, having been involved from the inception of the matter, should have recognised the irrelevance of the documents and refrained from charging for their perusal. If he did peruse them, he wasted his own time and cannot recover costs from his client or the deceased estate. The provisional order limiting costs to only relevant portions of the record is made final against both parties' attorneys and...

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 71
Parties
Appellant: Matsatsi Dinah Tiny Monyepao; Respondent: Mokgaetji Maria Ledwaba; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Polokwane; Respondent: Elmarie Bierman; Respondent: Matuba Maponya
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2020
Case Number
1368/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Order on Costs
Outcome
Paragraph 3.1 of the provisional order limiting costs is made final against both parties' attorneys and their correspondents.
Judges
Petse, Saldulker, Plasket, Nicholls, Koen
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Irrelevant Documents in Record, Attorney and Client Fees
Civil Procedure Costs Orders Irrelevant Documents in Record 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matsatsi Dinah Tiny Monyepao

Appellant

Mokgaetji Maria Ledwaba

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Polokwane

Respondent

Elmarie Bierman

Respondent

Matuba Maponya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Order on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether attorneys are entitled to charge fees for perusing irrelevant portions of the record.
  2. 2 Whether the provisional order limiting costs should be made final against both parties' attorneys.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the majority of the record submitted for the appeal was irrelevant and should not have been included. The appellant's attorney was responsible for filing the defective record and failed to comply with the court's requirements. The first respondent's attorney, having been involved from the inception of the matter, should have recognised the irrelevance of the documents and refrained from charging for their perusal. If he did peruse them, he wasted his own time and cannot recover costs from his client or the deceased estate. The provisional order limiting costs to only relevant portions of the record is made final against both parties' attorneys and...

Court Disposition

Paragraph 3.1 of the provisional order limiting costs is made final against both parties' attorneys and their correspondents.

Orders

  • No fee or disbursement may be levied, whether on a party and party basis or on an attorney and client basis, by the attorneys and correspondent attorneys of the parties in respect of any part of the record except for pages 1 to 125, the judgment of the court of first instance (eight pages), and the judgment of the...