Ras v Land en Landbou Ontwikkelingsbank van Suid Afrika (2360/2010) [2012] ZANWHC 63 (8 November 2012)

Ras v Land en Landbou Ontwikkelingsbank van Suid Afrika (2360/2010) [2012] ZANWHC 63 (8 November 2012)

The court held that the taxing master erred by treating all disputed expert costs as qualifying fees requiring a court order or agreement, without distinguishing between costs incurred for procurement of evidence and drafting pleadings, and those for preparation for trial. The taxing master failed to exercise proper discretion by not considering each item individually. The court found that some items may be recoverable as party and party costs if incurred for procurement of evidence or drafting pleadings, while preparation fees for trial require a court order or agreement. The matter was referred back to the taxing master for reconsideration and retaxation of the disputed items, with...

Citation
[2012] ZANWHC 63
Parties
Plaintiff: Lambertus Nicolaas Ras; Defendant: Die Land en Landbou Ontwikkelingsbank van Suid Afrika
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2012
Case Number
2360/2010
Procedural Posture
Taxation Review / Review of Taxing Master's Decision
Outcome
Application for review granted; matter referred back to taxing master for reconsideration and retaxation.
Judges
N Gutta
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Expert Witness Fees, Uniform Rules of Court, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Expert Witness Fees Uniform Rules of Court Party and Party Costs

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

Parties

Lambertus Nicolaas Ras

Plaintiff

Die Land en Landbou Ontwikkelingsbank van Suid Afrika

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Taxation Review / Review of Taxing Master's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing master erred in disallowing certain expert costs as qualifying fees without distinguishing between procurement and preparation of evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the taxing master failed to exercise proper discretion in categorizing all disputed items as qualifying fees.
  3. 3 Whether some costs should be allowed as procurement of evidence or drafting of pleadings rather than preparation for trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the taxing master erred by treating all disputed expert costs as qualifying fees requiring a court order or agreement, without distinguishing between costs incurred for procurement of evidence and drafting pleadings, and those for preparation for trial. The taxing master failed to exercise proper discretion by not considering each item individually. The court found that some items may be recoverable as party and party costs if incurred for procurement of evidence or drafting pleadings, while preparation fees for trial require a court order or agreement. The matter was referred back to the taxing master for reconsideration and retaxation of the disputed items, with...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; matter referred back to taxing master for reconsideration and retaxation.

Orders

  • The application for review is granted.
  • The matter is referred back to the taxing master for reconsideration and re-taxation of the disputed items.