About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZAGPPHC 98
|
|
Mabando v Law Society of the Northern Province (59003/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 98 (20 May 2011)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT,
PRETORIA
(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
CASE
NUMBER: 59003/2009
DATE:20
MAY 2011
In
The Matter Between
KASHAN
RAMOKOKA
MABANDO
..............................................................................
Applicant
And
THE
LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN
PROVINCE
..........................................
Respondent
(Incorporated
as the Law Society of the Transvaal)
JUDGMENT
MAKGOBA
J:
[1],
This is a stated case in terms of Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of
Court for a review of taxation made by the Taxing Master
on the 17
January 2011
[2].
The Applicant raised an objection in respect of item 10, "
perusal record of proceedings". The objection made against
the
whole of the amount of R2964-25 charged on item 10 of the Bill of
Costs is that the bundle of documents attached to the transcribed
record of the proceedings of the 8 June 2009 did not form part of the
proceedings as they were never produced at the hearing and
that the
Applicant was never provided with documents nor was any reference
made during the proceedings to any of the documents
forming part of
the bundle.
[3].
In the main application the Applicant had brought a review in terms
of Rule 53 against the proceedings that were held on the
8 June 2009
to have the name of the Applicant removed from the roll of legal
practitioners. Item 10 is made of a bundle of the
proceedings that
were held on the 8 June 2009 and all documents that were presented on
that date.
[4].
It is common cause that the review application was opposed by the Law
Society (Respondent). In terms of Rule 70 all costs that
are
necessary and proper for attainment of justice are allowed. The fact
that the review application was opposed meant that the
Respondent
would need to provide all necessary information in support of their
opposition, which in my view would include the documents
referred to
at item 10 of the Bill of Costs.
[5].
The Taxing Master's submission is that item 10 of the Bill was
correctly allowed. In this regard reference was made to case
of
Chemical Formulators & Consultants (Pty Ltd v. Detsave
Chemicals (Pty) Ltd and Others
1976 (1) SA 638
(W)
where the
question of perusal of material documents was raised. It was held
that for the attainment of justice, it was necessary
and proper to
peruse the documents. It was further held that although the documents
were not annexed to the applicant's notice
of motion and affidavits,
the perusal of those documents was necessary.
[6].
The Taxing Master submits that in the present case, the documents
were served as a separate bundle of the record of proceedings
held by
the Law Society and were not annexed to an affidavit but were
necessary in support of the respondent's case. I agree.
[7].
In
Waring v. Mervis & Others
1970 (3) SA 594
the
distinction between important and material documents was highlighted.
The documents not merely of evidential value but on which
the cause
action or the defence is directly based are important documents.
Material documents have evidential and probative value
in furthering
a party's case.
[8].
The Taxing Master's discretion in allowing item 10 because the
documents were both important and material to the Respondent's
case
cannot be faulted. In the circumstances the Taxing Master's
allocatur
dated 17 January 2011 in respect of item 10 thereof is confirmed and
the Applicant's objection is dismissed
EM
MAKGOBA
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT