Salemane and Others v Setsoto Local Municipality (1356/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 31 (12 February 2021)
The court found that while applicants are free to instruct attorneys and experts of their choice, the costs of such choices should not be imposed on the respondent, particularly where local alternatives were available and no compelling reasons were provided for engaging out-of-town professionals. The discretion of the taxing master in determining the necessity of multiple attorneys and expert costs should not be curtailed by a court order. The settlement agreement was scrutinized and amended to ensure only necessary and reasonable costs are recoverable, in line with public policy and the interests of justice. Only the costs of one set of attorneys (DSC Attorneys) are to be taxed, and the...
- Citation
- [2021] ZAFSHC 31
- Parties
- Applicant: Tsokolo Cecilia Salemane; Applicant: Boitumelo Valencia Sejane; Applicant: Neho Alexis Letela; Respondent: Setsoto Local Municipality
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 12 February 2021
- Case Number
- 1356/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Action / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court After Settlement in Damages Claim
- Outcome
- Settlement agreement made an order of court, subject to amendments regarding costs; only one bill of costs (DSC Attorneys) to be taxed; travel and accommodation expenses for expert consultation disallowed.
- Judges
- Daffue
- Legal Topics
- Costs of Multiple Attorneys, Party and Party Costs, Public Policy in Costs, Quantum of Damages, Expert Evidence, Settlement Agreements
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tsokolo Cecilia Salemane
Applicant
Boitumelo Valencia Sejane
Applicant
Neho Alexis Letela
Applicant
Setsoto Local Municipality
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court After Settlement in Damages Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the costs of two sets of attorneys (Cape Town and Bloemfontein) should be allowed on a party and party scale.
- 2 Whether the travelling and accommodation expenses for applicants to consult a Cape Town clinical psychologist should be recoverable from the respondent.
- 3 Whether the settlement agreement, including its costs provisions, accords with public policy and the law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while applicants are free to instruct attorneys and experts of their choice, the costs of such choices should not be imposed on the respondent, particularly where local alternatives were available and no compelling reasons were provided for engaging out-of-town professionals. The discretion of the taxing master in determining the necessity of multiple attorneys and expert costs should not be curtailed by a court order. The settlement agreement was scrutinized and amended to ensure only necessary and reasonable costs are recoverable, in line with public policy and the interests of justice. Only the costs of one set of attorneys (DSC Attorneys) are to be taxed, and the...
Court Disposition
Settlement agreement made an order of court, subject to amendments regarding costs; only one bill of costs (DSC Attorneys) to be taxed; travel and accommodation expenses for expert consultation disallowed.
Orders
- The respondent shall pay the applicants' attorneys the sum of R612,360.00 within 14 calendar days, failing which interest at the prescribed statutory rate will accrue.
- The respondent shall pay the applicants' taxed or agreed costs on the High Court scale as between party and party, limited to the bill of costs of DSC Attorneys only, including the fees of the expert Ms Elspeth Burke and applicants' counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment