Ndlambe Municipality v Lester and Another (3750/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 87 (8 September 2016)

Ndlambe Municipality v Lester and Another (3750/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 87 (8 September 2016)

The court held that the Taxing Master correctly applied the law by requiring the applicant to draft its bill of costs using the tariff appended to Rule 70 as a guide. The applicant's agreement with its attorneys, which provided for rates nearly double the tariff, did not constitute an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance justifying departure from the tariff. The Taxing Master exercised his discretion properly, considering the interests of justice and the need to protect the respondent from unreasonable expenses. The applicant failed to establish any irregularity or misdirection in the Taxing Master's decision, and the principles from Nel, Loots, and Aircraft Completions Centre were...

Citation
[2016] ZAECGHC 87
Parties
Applicant: Ndlambe Municipality; Respondent: Matthew Robert Michael Lester; Respondent: The Senior Registrar of the Above Honourable Court
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2016
Case Number
3750/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
S Tilana-Mabece, C Plasket
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Attorney and Client Costs, Rule 70 Tariff, Review of Taxing Master Decision
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Attorney and Client Costs Rule 70 Tariff Review of Taxing Master Decision

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ndlambe Municipality

Applicant

Matthew Robert Michael Lester

Respondent

The Senior Registrar of the Above Honourable Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master misdirected himself in requiring the applicant to draft its bill of costs using the tariff appended to Rule 70 as a guide.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to recover from the respondent the costs agreed upon with its attorneys, or only those deemed reasonable under Rule 70.
  3. 3 Whether the Taxing Master properly exercised his discretion in rejecting the applicant's bill of costs based on the agreement with its attorneys.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Taxing Master correctly applied the law by requiring the applicant to draft its bill of costs using the tariff appended to Rule 70 as a guide. The applicant's agreement with its attorneys, which provided for rates nearly double the tariff, did not constitute an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance justifying departure from the tariff. The Taxing Master exercised his discretion properly, considering the interests of justice and the need to protect the respondent from unreasonable expenses. The applicant failed to establish any irregularity or misdirection in the Taxing Master's decision, and the principles from Nel, Loots, and Aircraft Completions Centre were...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the Taxing Master's decision is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.