Goodricke & Son v Durban City Council and Another

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeBroome JP
Judgment Date04 March 1958
Citation1958 (2) SA 340 (N)
Hearing Date18 February 1958
CourtNatal Provincial Division

H Broome, J.P.:

This is an application for the review of the taxation of applicant's bill of costs by the Registrar of Deeds, the second respondent. Applicant is a firm of attorneys and conveyancers who were acting for the owner of certain land which first respondent desired to expropriate. After negotiations it was agreed between applicant's

Broome JP

client and first respondent that the latter should purchase the land and that the documents of transfer should be prepared by applicant, apparently at first respondent's expense. In due course applicant prepared and rendered the first respondent a bill of costs which was taxed by second respondent. This is an application to review that A taxation. First respondent has intimated that it abides by the decision of the Court. Second respondent has submitted a report.

Sec. 4 (2) of Act 47 of 1937 requires the Registrar of Deeds to perform

'all the functions of a taxing officer of the Court in relation to fees charged by conveyancers. . . .'

B So far as I am aware, this is the first time that this Court has been asked to review a taxation by the Registrar of Deeds, but a similar application was recently dealt with by the Transvaal Provincial Division: see Peens & Smit v Vermeulen and Another, 1956 (1) SA 137 (T). I am satisfied that this Court has the necessary jurisdiction C seeing that sec. 4 (2) puts the Registrar of Deeds in the position of a taxing officer of this Court, and this Court undoubtedly has power to review the taxations of its taxing officers. I adhere to the views I expressed in Dube v Pike, Shaw & Co. and Another, 1958 (1) SA 135 (N) at p. 137.

D Applicant objects to second respondent's disallowance of fourteen items in the bill of costs. Eleven of them represent charges for the perusal of letters and three represent charges for writing letters. In regard to the former group, applicant's affidavit alleges that the Registrar said at the taxation that normally no charge was allowed for perusing letters. In his report, however, the Registrar supports his disallowance E of these items on the ground that there is no provision in the tariff for such fees. I shall deal with this point first.

By Government Notice 1265 of 1938 the Governor-General notified his approval of regulations made, in terms of sec. 10 of the Act, by the board established under sec. 9. Annexed to those regulations is a F schedule of the fees and charges of conveyancers. Mr. Feetham for applicant accepts that a conveyancer may not properly charge any fee which is not covered by the schedule. The penultimate section of the schedule, sec. XII, provides:

'1. All fees or charges specified in the above tariff shall, save as is otherwise provided, cover the specific respective services set opposite each respective item only. Fees or charges for all other attendances...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Koekemoer v Parity Insurance Co Ltd and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SA 639; Krentos v Commissioner of Customs, 1956 (4) SA 171; Preller v Jordaan, 1957 (3) SA 201; Goodricke & Co v Durban City Council, 1958 (2) SA 340; Nokwe's case, supra; Phiri v Northern Assurance Ltd., 1962 (4) SA 284; Adamant case, supra. The general rule is that H two counsel are allow......
  • Ex parte Joseph Lawrance & Co Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...amended by the resolution passed by an extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders of the said company on the 31st January, 1958, 1958 (2) SA p340 De Villiers (2) converting the said company from a public into a private company, and (3) altering the name of the said company to that of......
  • Bowman, Gilfillan & Blacklock v Timberit Properties and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Limited v Natal Pharmaceutical Society, 1937 NPD 418 at p. 421, as referred to in Goodricke & Son v Durban City Council and Another, 1958 (2) SA 340 (N), I grant an order in terms of prayer (a) of the order prayed as E That the Registrar of Deeds, Natal, be and he is hereby required to re-t......
  • Duvos (Pty) Ltd v Newcastle Town Council and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...or the exercise of a discretion on a wrong principle (cf. BROOME, J.P., in Goodricke and Son v Durban City Council and Another, 1958 (2) SA 340 (N) at p. 344; cf. Buonanno's case, supra at p. 658). Thus, in regard to the third class of complaint, I am of the view that the review should C Th......
4 cases
  • Koekemoer v Parity Insurance Co Ltd and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SA 639; Krentos v Commissioner of Customs, 1956 (4) SA 171; Preller v Jordaan, 1957 (3) SA 201; Goodricke & Co v Durban City Council, 1958 (2) SA 340; Nokwe's case, supra; Phiri v Northern Assurance Ltd., 1962 (4) SA 284; Adamant case, supra. The general rule is that H two counsel are allow......
  • Ex parte Joseph Lawrance & Co Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...amended by the resolution passed by an extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders of the said company on the 31st January, 1958, 1958 (2) SA p340 De Villiers (2) converting the said company from a public into a private company, and (3) altering the name of the said company to that of......
  • Bowman, Gilfillan & Blacklock v Timberit Properties and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Limited v Natal Pharmaceutical Society, 1937 NPD 418 at p. 421, as referred to in Goodricke & Son v Durban City Council and Another, 1958 (2) SA 340 (N), I grant an order in terms of prayer (a) of the order prayed as E That the Registrar of Deeds, Natal, be and he is hereby required to re-t......
  • Duvos (Pty) Ltd v Newcastle Town Council and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...or the exercise of a discretion on a wrong principle (cf. BROOME, J.P., in Goodricke and Son v Durban City Council and Another, 1958 (2) SA 340 (N) at p. 344; cf. Buonanno's case, supra at p. 658). Thus, in regard to the third class of complaint, I am of the view that the review should C Th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT