Minister of Water Affairs v Meyburg

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeCloete J
Judgment Date05 July 1966
Citation1966 (4) SA 51 (E)
Hearing Date05 July 1966
CourtEastern Cape Division

H Cloete, J.:

The applicant was the respondent in an interlocutory application brought by the respondent on 27th January, 1966, for an order compelling the applicant to furnish further and better particulars asked for in requests therefor dated 2nd November, 1965, and 21st December, 1965. These interlocutory proceedings related to an application in terms of sec. 60 of the Water Act, 54 of 1956, as amended, in which the present respondent (as applicant) sought an order determining the amount of compensation payable to him for certain farm land

Cloete J

expropriated by the present applicant (as respondent). On 28th January, 1966, the Court dismissed the interlocutory application with costs.

The taxing master, in the exercise of his discretion, when the A respondent's bill of costs was taxed, disallowed certain items which may be summarised as follows, namely:

(a)

perusing the applicant's (now respondent's) heads of argument by the respondent;

(b)

respondent's (now applicant's) attorney's appearance in Court at B Grahamstown, and his ancillary claims related thereto; and

(c)

a special fee for counsel.

These items are more specifically described in the bill, as follows:


(1)

Deurlesing van applikant se hoofde van argument (100 fols).

R27.50

(2)

Bywoning van Hof toe aansoek beredeneer is (7 uur)

R36.75

(3)

Bywoning van Hof toe aansoek verwerp is (3 uur)

R15.75

(4)

Spesiale toelaag (tarief) item E (1) t.o.v. reis en wagtyd bestee vir doeleindes van saak (2 dae)

R42.00

(5)

Bedrag opgeëis t.o.v. noodsaaklike vervoerkoste (reis Grahamstown toe en terug Bethulie) (500 myl)

R50.00

(6)

Spesiale fooi (verskyning buite Provinsie)

R30.00"


The grounds relied upon by the taxing master were that they were not necessary or proper for the attainment of justice as between party and party.

The question now to be determined is whether the taxing master, in the exercise of his discretion, has erred in disallowing the fees and E disbursements mentioned in a party and party bill of costs.

It is a well-established principle that the Court will not lightly disturb the ruling of a taxing master where he has exercised his discretion. It will be interfered with if (a) he has not exercised his discretion judicially, that is, if he has exercised it improperly; (b) F he has not brought his mind to bear upon the question; or (c) he has acted on a wrong principle. See e.g. Nourse Mines, Ltd v Clarke, 1910 T.P.D. 660; Koch v S.K.F. Laboratories (Pty.) Ltd., 1962 (3) SA 764 (E). In Century Trading Co. (Pty.) Ltd v The Taxing Master and Another, 1958 (1) SA 78 (W), it was held that a review of this nature is a revision of the taxation and that the Court will interfere not only G when it considers that the taxing master has exercised his discretion improperly on some question of principle, but also when it considers that the taxing master has been clearly wrong in regard to some item in the bill of costs.

If one has regard to these principles then it seems to me that there are H no grounds for interfering with the taxing master's decision in regard to the disallowance of the fees claimed for perusing the present respondent's so-called heads of argument. These are not required by the Rules and it is clear that, in accordance with a salutary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Ocean Commodities Inc and Others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Board and Others v Liesing 1968 (4) SA 401; Menday v Protea Assurance Co Ltd 1976 (1) SA B 565; Minister of Water Affairs v Meyburgh 1966 (4) SA 51; Jacobs and Ehlers The Law of Attorneys' Costs and Taxation Thereof 1st ed at 98; Groenewald v Selford Motors 1971 (3) SA 677; Windhoek Crusher......
  • Groenewald v Selford Motors (Edms) Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(3)] [c.P.D.] Estates Ltd. and Another, 1954 (4) S.A. 425 (N) at p. 429, quoted with approval in Minister of Water Affairs v. Meyburg, 1966 (4) S.A. 51 (E) at p. 54). Meyburg's case, supra at p. 54F, seems to be distinguishable from the present one on two grounds. Firstly that case concerne......
  • Cambridge Plan AG v Cambridge Diet (Pty) Ltd and Others
    • South Africa
    • Transvaal Provincial Division
    • 20 June 1989
    ...argument) such a fee cannot be allowed. This decision would accord with the principles set out in Minister of Water Affairs v Meyburg 1966 (4) SA 51 (E).' The Taxing Master particularly referred to the Magwill matter at 170G where Van Dijkhorst J is reported to have stated: D 'It is not nec......
  • Cambridge Plan AG v Cambridge Diet (Pty) Ltd and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...argument) such a fee cannot be allowed. This decision would accord with the principles set out in Minister of Water Affairs v Meyburg 1966 (4) SA 51 (E).' The Taxing Master particularly referred to the Magwill matter at 170G where Van Dijkhorst J is reported to have stated: D 'It is not nec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Ocean Commodities Inc and Others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Board and Others v Liesing 1968 (4) SA 401; Menday v Protea Assurance Co Ltd 1976 (1) SA B 565; Minister of Water Affairs v Meyburgh 1966 (4) SA 51; Jacobs and Ehlers The Law of Attorneys' Costs and Taxation Thereof 1st ed at 98; Groenewald v Selford Motors 1971 (3) SA 677; Windhoek Crusher......
  • Groenewald v Selford Motors (Edms) Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(3)] [c.P.D.] Estates Ltd. and Another, 1954 (4) S.A. 425 (N) at p. 429, quoted with approval in Minister of Water Affairs v. Meyburg, 1966 (4) S.A. 51 (E) at p. 54). Meyburg's case, supra at p. 54F, seems to be distinguishable from the present one on two grounds. Firstly that case concerne......
  • Cambridge Plan AG v Cambridge Diet (Pty) Ltd and Others
    • South Africa
    • Transvaal Provincial Division
    • 20 June 1989
    ...argument) such a fee cannot be allowed. This decision would accord with the principles set out in Minister of Water Affairs v Meyburg 1966 (4) SA 51 (E).' The Taxing Master particularly referred to the Magwill matter at 170G where Van Dijkhorst J is reported to have stated: D 'It is not nec......
  • Cambridge Plan AG v Cambridge Diet (Pty) Ltd and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...argument) such a fee cannot be allowed. This decision would accord with the principles set out in Minister of Water Affairs v Meyburg 1966 (4) SA 51 (E).' The Taxing Master particularly referred to the Magwill matter at 170G where Van Dijkhorst J is reported to have stated: D 'It is not nec......
  • 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