Agency & Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Bankovs Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Wessels AJ
• Judgment Date: 31 October 1991
• Citation: 1992 (3) SA 297 (O)
• Hearing Date: 31 October 1991
• Court: Orange Free State Provincial Division

Wessels AJ:

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the Taxing Master's G decision and ruling to disallow certain items on the plaintiff's party and party bill of costs and has filed a notice of objection in terms of the provisions of Rule of Court 48(1).

The Taxing Master (Mistress in this instance) has prepared a stated case and in response thereto the plaintiff filed certain written submissions and contentions.

The defendant, who objected to the relevant items before the Taxing H Master, has not filed any written contentions or submissions as he was entitled - but not obliged - to in terms of Rule 48(2).

The items which were disallowed are the following (the numbers are those appearing on the bill of costs): I

'263	Attending on cheque to pay for air tickets	R948,00
264	Attending on SAA to uplift tickets	2,00
265	Attending on proceeding to Bloemfontein by air with counsel and client	25,00
J 271	Attending on proceeding to Johannesburg with client by air	25,00

Wessels AJ

A 275	Attend on peruse and consider account iro accommodation	1,00
276	Attend on cheque to pay for hotel accommodation	2,00	676,75
277	Attending to arrange for hire of motor car	25,00
278	Attending receipt of account for motor car	1,00
279	Attending to pay account for hire of motor car	2,00	163,81' B

If plaintiff is not allowed to tax the costs of the air tickets, the hotel accommodation and the vehicle which was hired, he would hardly be entitled to tax items 264, 275, 277 and 278. Primarily, therefore, I should decide whether plaintiff was entitled to have items 263, 265, 271, 276 and 279 C taxed as party and party costs.

Plaintiff's attorney of first instance, Mr Brian Lebos of Johannesburg, has, in his submissions in terms of Rule 48(2), suggested that the costs pertaining to the attendance at the trial of himself and a director of the plaintiff, Mr Goldring, should have been allowed because they would have had to give evidence if the parties had not, on the first day, reached an D agreement to place a stated case for decision before the Court.

Mr Lebos, on behalf of plaintiff, submits that he would have had to testify - apparently in an interlocutory application - as to certain minutes which he inspected and which defendant refused to make available on the grounds that they were privileged and that Mr Goldring would also E have been a witness if the agreement was not reached.

It is common cause that neither Mr Lebos nor Mr Goldring were declared necessary witnesses. It also appears from the said Mr Lebos' submissions that:

(a)

the air tickets were for Mr Lebos, Mr Goldring and plaintiff's F counsel who practises in Johannesburg;

(b)

the hotel accommodation was for Lebos, Goldring and plaintiff's counsel;

(c)

the vehicle was hired to transport the abovementioned persons from the airport to the hotel 'and for counsel from the hotel to the airport'.

G The basis upon which a review such as this should be approached was discussed and considered in, inter alia, Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v...