Koekemoer v Parity Insurance Co Ltd and Another

JudgeClaassen J, Theron J and Colman J
Judgment Date18 August 1964
Citation1964 (4) SA 138 (T)
Hearing Date12 August 1964
CourtTransvaal Provincial Division

Colman, J.:

This is an appeal against the judgment of a single Judge in which he declined to interfere with the decision of the taxing master on a question which arose in the taxation of a bill of costs.

The present appellant was the plaintiff in an action against the first A respondent wherein he claimed damages for personal injuries sustained by him in a motor collision. Originally he had one counsel acting for him, but about two weeks before the date appointed for the trial a second counsel was briefed to appear in the action. On the day before the trial date the matter was settled on the basis that the defendant was to pay damages in the sum of R4,289, together with taxed costs as beween party and party.

B On the trial date counsel appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, but no order in terms of the settlement was sought or obtained. The matter was merely postponed sine die. There was no appearance on behalf of the defendant, and no question relating to the costs of the action was raised or dealt with by the Court.

C When the present appellant's attorney appeared before the taxing master to tax his party and party bill of costs in pursuance of the settlement, the taxing master disallowed the costs consequent upon the employment of a second counsel on behalf of the plaintiff.

It was against this decision that the appellant moved the Court for relief. He contended:

(a)

D that the taxing master had no discretion on the question in dispute. In the absence of a contrary direction by the trial Court, it was argued, the taxing master was obliged to allow the costs incurred in respect of both counsel who had been briefed on behalf of the plaintiff; alternatively

(b)

E that if the taxing master had a discretion, he had exercised it wrongly. The bill of costs ought, in the circumstances, to have been taxed on the basis that two counsel had been properly employed and that the expense of employing them was recoverable from the defendant.

F HIEMSTRA, J., held against the plaintiff on both points, and his decision is now attacked on appeal.

The first of the two questions which I have mentioned is governed by the provisions appearing in Note VI to Union Rule of Court 24, the material portion whereof reads as follows:

'The taxing master shall, unless the court when awarding costs orders G otherwise, allow as party and party costs -

(a)

in any matter where more than one counsel is employed, the reasonable fee consequent upon such employment: Provided that he may disallow the fee of more than one counsel in unopposed matters and in matters in which counsel has not appeared on the other side.'

It will be seen from these provisions that when more counsel than one H have been employed by a party to whom the Court awards costs, the Court may order that fees consequent upon the employment of one or more of those counsel are not to be allowed as between party and party.

If no such order is made by the Court when it awards costs, the reasonable fees consequent upon the employment of all the counsel employed are to be allowed except in an unopposed matter or a matter

Colman J

in which counsel has not appeared on behalf of the litigant by whom the costs are to be paid.

In a case falling within one of the two special classes which I have mentioned it is clearly for the taxing master, in the exercise of his A discretion, to decide whether or not to allow fees consequent upon the employment of more than one counsel.

It was argued before us that, as the Court in the present case made no special order in regard to costs, the main provision in Note VI came into operation: that the case fell into neither of the special classes which I have mentioned, and that the taxing master, therefore, had no B ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Minister of Law and Order v Ngobo
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(W) at 43H; De Lange v F Transvaal Lewende Hawe Ko-op Bpk 1958 (1) SA 17 (T) at 22E; Koekemoer v Parity Insurance Co Ltd and Another 1964 (4) SA 138 (T) at 144H-145A; Enslin v Vereeniging Town Council 1976 (3) SA 443 (T) at 453E-H; Joubert (ed) The Law of South Africa vol 3 para Cur adv vul......
  • Pride Milling Co (Pty) Ltd v Bekker NO and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Affinity (Pty) Ltd and Another 1983 (1) SA 79 (C): referred to Koekemoer v Parity Insurance Co Ltd and Another 1964 (4) SA 138 (T): dictum at 144F – 145 Kubyana v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2014 (3) SA 56 (CC) (2014 (4) BCLR 400; [2014] ZACC 1): referred to Kw......
  • Pride Milling Co (Pty) Ltd v Bekker NO and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Affinity (Pty) Ltd and Another 1983 (1) SA 79 (C): referred to Koekemoer v Parity Insurance Co Ltd and Another 1964 (4) SA 138 (T): dictum at 144F – 145 Kubyana v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2014 (3) SA 56 (CC) (2014 (4) BCLR 400; [2014] ZACC 1): referred to Kw......
  • General Leasing Corporation Ltd v Louw
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...per MILLIN, J.; Preller v Jordaan and Others, 1957 (3) SA 201 (O) at p. 203C - E; Koekemoer v Parity Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 1964 (4) SA 138 (T) (Full Bench) at pp. 143 - 4; F Phiri v Northern Assurance Co. Ltd., 1962 (4) SA 284 (C) at p. 285E; Jandrell v Stanley, 1967 (3) SA 24 (T)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Minister of Law and Order v Ngobo
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(W) at 43H; De Lange v F Transvaal Lewende Hawe Ko-op Bpk 1958 (1) SA 17 (T) at 22E; Koekemoer v Parity Insurance Co Ltd and Another 1964 (4) SA 138 (T) at 144H-145A; Enslin v Vereeniging Town Council 1976 (3) SA 443 (T) at 453E-H; Joubert (ed) The Law of South Africa vol 3 para Cur adv vul......
  • Pride Milling Co (Pty) Ltd v Bekker NO and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Affinity (Pty) Ltd and Another 1983 (1) SA 79 (C): referred to Koekemoer v Parity Insurance Co Ltd and Another 1964 (4) SA 138 (T): dictum at 144F – 145 Kubyana v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2014 (3) SA 56 (CC) (2014 (4) BCLR 400; [2014] ZACC 1): referred to Kw......
  • Pride Milling Co (Pty) Ltd v Bekker NO and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Affinity (Pty) Ltd and Another 1983 (1) SA 79 (C): referred to Koekemoer v Parity Insurance Co Ltd and Another 1964 (4) SA 138 (T): dictum at 144F – 145 Kubyana v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2014 (3) SA 56 (CC) (2014 (4) BCLR 400; [2014] ZACC 1): referred to Kw......
  • General Leasing Corporation Ltd v Louw
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...per MILLIN, J.; Preller v Jordaan and Others, 1957 (3) SA 201 (O) at p. 203C - E; Koekemoer v Parity Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 1964 (4) SA 138 (T) (Full Bench) at pp. 143 - 4; F Phiri v Northern Assurance Co. Ltd., 1962 (4) SA 284 (C) at p. 285E; Jandrell v Stanley, 1967 (3) SA 24 (T)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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