Agency & Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Bankovs Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1992 (3) SA 297 (O)

Agency & Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Bankovs Ltd
1992 (3) SA 297 (O)

1992 (3) SA p297

Citation	1992 (3) SA 297 (O)
Court	Orange Free State Provincial Division
Judge	Wessels AJ
Heard	October 31, 1991
Judgment	October 31, 1991

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Costs — Party and party — Witness' expenses — Witness, director of plaintiff company, not declared a necessary witness — Taxing Master disallowing expenses claimed — Court on review cannot decide that Taxing C Master clearly wrong merely because witness in opinion of Court was a necessary witness or would have been so declared if application therefor had been made — Semble: If it is a rule of practice that party only entitled to tax witness' expenses if witness declared a necessary witness, even a director of a company should be so declared in order to entitle D such a company to tax director's expenses in its party and party bill.

Headnote : Kopnota

Where a director of a company which was the successful litigant in legal proceedings has not been declared a necessary witness, the Court, in a review of the Taxing Master's decision to disallow the travelling and accommodation expenses of the director witness, cannot find that the E Taxing Master was clearly wrong in disallowing such expenses. The reviewing Court cannot decide that the Taxing Master was clearly wrong merely because it is of the opinion that such a witness was a necessary witness and/or would have been declared such had there been an application to that effect before the trial Court.

Semble: If it is a rule of practice that a party to proceedings is only entitled to tax expenses pertaining to a witness if the witness has been declared a necessary witness, even a director of a company should be so F declared in order to entitle the company to tax the director's expenses (as a witness) in its party and party bill of costs.

Case Information

Review of a taxation of a party and party bill of costs.

Judgment

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

1992 (3) SA p298

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...