Nteshe v Christiaan (243/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 30 (18 February 2021)

Nteshe v Christiaan (243/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 30 (18 February 2021)

The court found that the Taxing Mistress erred in allowing the consultation fee for a minor amendment, as it was unnecessary and unreasonable for the losing party to pay for a step that could have been handled by the attorney. The appearance fee was also incorrectly allowed for two separate applications when only one appearance was made to argue both, and the matters were simple and not complex. The Taxing Mistress failed to properly consider the circumstances and factors relevant to the reasonableness of the fees. The court intervened and set aside the disputed items, fixing the costs payable by the respondent.

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 30
Parties
Applicant: Smanga Simon Nteshe; Respondent: Mavis Christiaan
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Case Number
243/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48
Outcome
The review of taxation succeeds; the disputed items are set aside and costs are fixed in favour of the applicant.
Judges
M A Mathebula
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Judicial Discretion, Review of Taxing Master, Costs Awards
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Judicial Discretion Review of Taxing Master Costs Awards

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smanga Simon Nteshe

Applicant

Mavis Christiaan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Mistress exercised her discretion properly in allowing fees for consultation and appearance.
  2. 2 Whether the fees charged for counsel's appearance to argue two applications on the same day were reasonable.
  3. 3 Whether the consultation fee for a minor amendment was justified and should be allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Taxing Mistress erred in allowing the consultation fee for a minor amendment, as it was unnecessary and unreasonable for the losing party to pay for a step that could have been handled by the attorney. The appearance fee was also incorrectly allowed for two separate applications when only one appearance was made to argue both, and the matters were simple and not complex. The Taxing Mistress failed to properly consider the circumstances and factors relevant to the reasonableness of the fees. The court intervened and set aside the disputed items, fixing the costs payable by the respondent.

Court Disposition

The review of taxation succeeds; the disputed items are set aside and costs are fixed in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The review of taxation succeeds.
  • The amounts of R585.00 and R9 000.00 allowed by the Taxing Mistress for consultation with counsel and appearance fee on 12 March 2020 are set aside.