J.A. Le Roux Attorneys v Madaza

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Court: Eastern Cape Division
• Judge: GNZ Mjali J
• Judgment Date: 01 April 2017
• Citation: 2017 JDR 0303 (ECM)
• Hearing Date: 01 March 2017
• Docket Number: 2228/2013

Mjali J:

1.

Following a long history of litigation between the parties as well as a writ of execution against the applicants which was obtained pursuant to an impugned taxation of certain bills of costs, the applicants launched the present proceedings on an urgent basis seeking an order couched in the following terms.

1.1

That the writ of execution issued by the first and second respondents under case number 397A/2013 against the applicants be stayed pending the finalisation of a

2017 JDR 0303 p2

Mjali J

rescission, alternatively, review of the taxation and subsequent allocator of the taxed bill of costs.

1.2

That the execution of the writs of execution issued by the first and second respondents under case number 1192/2013 out of this Court against the second applicant in favour of the first and second respondents be stayed pending the finalization of a review of the taxation and subsequent allocator of the taxed bills of costs.

1.3

That the taxation of the bill of costs between first and second respondents and the applicants and the subsequent allocator by the third respondent in case number 397A/2013 on 3 September 2013 be rescinded and set aside.

1.4

That the first and second respondents pay costs jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved. In the event of opposition by the third and fourth respondents, that all the respondents pay the costs of this application jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved.

1.5

That paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 above shall serve as an interim interdict pending the finalisation of the application for review proceedings to be instituted.

2.

On 12 September 2013 an interim order in favour of the applicants was granted. At the hearing of this matter on 25 April 2014 I gave an order setting aside the decision of the registrar in the taxation that took place on 3 September 2013 in respect of case number 397A/ 2013. I extended the interim order in respect of case number 1192/2013 until the finalisation of review of taxation that had been launched in that matter. I further ordered that the respondents should pay costs of this application and that my reasons for the order will follow. These are the reasons.

3.

Following a withdrawal of an interlocutory application in case number 397A/2013 as well as the tendering of costs by the applicant, the second respondent filed a bill of costs together with disbursements for an amount in excess of R200 000.00 in respect of the aforesaid interlocutory application. Another bill of costs was also filed in respect

2017 JDR 0303 p3

Mjali J

of case number 1192/2013. The applicants filed their objections to the items set out in both bills of costs and the taxation of both bills was set down for 8 August 2013. The grounds of objection to the items in the bill of costs included(but not limited to) the following, excessive times being spent on certain items, certain costs being unjustified due to either being reserved at the time of taxation or that a no cost order was issued with regard to them. In some instances the applicant objected to being charged costs of an application which was never enrolled for hearing or was withdrawn upon receipt of a Rule 30 notice.

4.

Taxation could not proceed on that day and had to be rescheduled for another day. After numerous postponements only the taxation of the bill of costs in respect of case number 1192/2013 was conducted and finalised on 30 August 2013. At the time of the hearing of this matter the applicants had commenced with the process of the review of taxation in respect of that case (number 1192/2013). The issues challenged therein are subject of that review process and will not be dealt with in this judgment. The only order sought in this application in respect of that case is the stay of the writ of execution.

5.

The taxation of the bill of costs in respect of case number 397A/2013 was done on 2 September 2013 and when it could not be finalised it was postponed until the following day. Mr Le Roux who represented the applicants indicated that due to a prior arrangement he would only be available for such taxation on 3 September from 11.30 until 13.00. On that day the taxation proceeded until the third respondent indicated to the parties at 12.50 that he was taking a lunch break. At that time the taxation of the bill had not advanced as the only issue that had been dealt with was whether or not counsel's fees should be allowed.

2017 JDR 0303 p4

Mjali J

6.

It was at that stage that Mr Le Roux reminded the respondents that he would not be available to proceed with the taxation after the lunch break on that day due to his previous arrangements. That elicited no response from the third respondent who simply went out of his office leaving the parties behind. When that happened Mr Le Roux suggested to the first respondent and his articled clerk that they reschedule the taxation for the next day alternatively that...