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
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPPHC 655
|
|
Selota v Chuene (52908/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 655 (6 September 2022)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 52908/2018
DATE:
JANUARY 2022
REPORTABLE:
YES
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES
REVISED:
YES
6
SEPTEMBER 2022
In
the matter between:-
MAMOLATELO
ALFRED
SELOTA
Applicant
and
ADV
KC CHUENE
Respondent
JUDGMENT
SKOSANA
AJ
[1]
The applicant herein seeks leave to
appeal against my judgment wherein I dismissed his application for
rescission.
[2]
The applicant has not advanced any
contentions beyond those that were placed before me during
the hearing
of the main application.
What seems to
be
the
applicant's
main
ground
is
that
the
respondent
cannot legitimately claim his fees until
taxation of the bills has occurred. It is not clear whether he bases
the contention on
a general rule or the specific agreement between
the parties.
[3]
First, such taxation has not happened
for many years. Second, in his persistence that the respondent's fees
can only be paid after
taxation, the applicant refers
to no prescripts
either
in
the rules of practice,
from
case law or elsewhere to support the
existence of such general rule. The authorities he refers to state
the contrary or relate to
taxation of costs claimed
by
the
opponents.
I
doubt
that when
the
applicant
himself
has
to claim his own fees from his clients,
he always waits for the taxation of bills before doing so. Such a
rule would be unsustainable.
[4]
As far as the existence of an agreement
to be paid after taxation is concerned, I gave reasons in my main
judgment why that is a
remote possibility. Worse still, the applicant
adds that the respondent agreed to payment only after the applicant
has been paid
by its client. Yet there is no written agreement
signed by
both parties
to that effect.
I
find
this suggestion so implausible in that circumstances that it warrants
no later reconsideration.
[5]
It
follows that the applicant's contentions have no substance. I also
cannot see any prospects of success of the appeal, more so
on the
elevated threshold for leave to appeal as expressed by the word
'would' in
section 17(1)(a)(i)
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of
2013
[1]
.
[6]
In the result, I make the following
order:
[5.1]
The application for leave to appeal is
dismissed with costs.
DTSKOSANA
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
Counsel
for the
Applicant:
Ms
B Matlhape
Instructed
by:
RAMMUTLA-AT-LAW
INC.
Counsel
for the Respondent: Adv V
Mabe
Instructed
by:
Sello
B Letsoalo Attorneys Inc
Date
heard:
26
January 2022
Date
of Judgment:
January
2022
[1]
The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen (148/2015) 120171 ZASCA 89;
Notshokovu v S (157/15) 120161 ZASCA 112 para 121 and the
authorities cited therein