Maartens v Kobus Van Zyl Boerdery BK (1973/2006) [2008] ZAFSHC 149 (11 December 2008)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2008
>>
[2008] ZAFSHC 149
|

|

Maartens v Kobus Van Zyl Boerdery BK (1973/2006) [2008] ZAFSHC 149 (11 December 2008)

IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE
PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Case No.: 1973/2006
In the case between:
JOHANNES CORNELIUS
MAARTENS
and
KOBUS VAN ZYL
BOERDERY BK
_____________________________________________________
JUDGMENT:
MOLEMELA, J
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON:
11 DECEMBER 2008
_____________________________________________________
[1]
This
is a review of taxation as contemplated in rule 48 of the Uniform
Rules of Court. Pursuant to the taxing master’s filing
of a stated
case in terms of rule 48(1), both parties made written submissions.
I accordingly decide this matter as contemplated
in rule 48(6)(a)(i)
of the Uniform Rules.
[2] The review stems from
the taxation of a bill of costs pursuant to the following order that
was made by Justice C J Musi:
“
1. Die eksepsie slaag met koste.
2. Die eiser se besonderhede van
vordering word deurgehaal en eiser word verlof gegee om, indien so
geadviseer, gewysigde besonderhede
van vordering te liasseer binne
een maand van datum van hierdie uitspraak.”
[3] Despite
objections from the defendant’s representatives, the taxing master
taxed off part of the defendant’s advocate’s
fees.
The total fees charged by the defendant’s advocate was an amount of
R31 122.00, which was broken down as follows:-
“
Datum/Date Beskrywing/Description
Bedrag/Amount
6/1/2007 Deurgaan, oorweeg en R 5
200,00
hoofpunte
van betoog
1/2/2007 Deurgaan &
voorbereiding R 9 100,00
2/2/2007 Eksepsie
R13
000,00
Sub Totaal/Total R27 300,00
VAT/BTW
R
3 822,00
TOTAAL/TOTAAL R31
122,00
[4]
Of
the total amount of R31 122.00, an amount of R14 022,00 was
disallowed by the taxing master as she had issues with items 1 &

2 of the bill. She advanced the following reasons in her stated
case:-
“
(1) Item 1 –
deurgaan, oorweeg en hoofpunte van betoog. Die hoofpunte van betoog
kan nie apart van die verhoorfooi gevra word
nie omdat dit geag word
as deel van voorbereiding. Die fooi vir hoofde moet daarom ingesluit
word by die 1ste dag verhoorfooi
wat beide voorbereiding en
verskyning insluit. Dit is onder andere ook die rede waarom ‘n
Advokaat se 1ste dag verhoorfooi hoër
is, as die 2de en 3de
verhoordae. Sou ‘n advokaat in sy faktuur die twee, hoofde en
voorbereiding van mekaar skei maar die koste
van beide val steeds
binne die riglyne, sal dit so toegelaat word.
Indien
nie, moet die verskil afgetakseer word.
(2)
As
die hof saamstem dat die hoofde deel is van die verhoorfooi is die
volgende aspek waarmee gehandel word in items 1 & 2, deurgaan
en
oorweeg asook deurgaan en voorbereiding. Beide hierdie items handel
met deurgaan van stukke wat
‘n
duplisering daarstel. Dit beteken dat redelike en billike koste
oorweeg moet word vir deurgaan van stukke. Aspekte om in
gedagte te
hou is die ingewikkeldheid van die saak en ook die aantal bladsye van
die stukke.
Redelikheidshalwe moet die woord
“voorbereiding” in item 2 ignoreer word, aangesien dit reeds by
die verhoorfooi ingesluit
is en kan die Advokaat nie ‘n tweede keer
daarvoor penaliseer word nie.
Die fooi vir deurgaan en oorweeg, van
die stukke, soos gevra is in totaal ‘n bedrag van R14 300, wat myns
insiens buitensporig
hoog is. Die stukke voor die hof geplaas is
volgens die inhoudsopgawe 30 bladsye uitgesluit die hoofde, wat
onderskeidelik bestaan
uit 15 en 5 bladsye, ‘n totaal van 50
bladsye. Dit is ook die takseermeester se mening dat die
aangeleentheid nie so ingewikkeld
kon wees soos die Prokureurs wil
voorgee nie, aangesien slegs die eksepsie voor die hof geplaas was en
dit nie nodig was om oor
feite van die hoofaksie te argumenteer nie.
Die takseermeester se opinie is dat ‘n Advokaat van hierdie
senioriteit en gehalte
verseker nie langer as 2 ure gaan neem vir die
deurlees van die stukke nie. Die tyd toegelaat in verhouding met die
aantal bladsye,
vir deurlees, is in ooreenstemming met wat Prokureurs
op ‘n tydsbasis kry.
‘n Bedrag van R1 344.00 per uur is
toegelaat, min of meer dieselfde wat ander Advokate van die selfde
senioriteit vra. Dit was
egter nie moontlik om ‘n presiese bedrag
per uur vas te stel nie aangesien die betrokke advokaat geen tyd
uiteengesit het op
enige van sy fakture. Sou mens die hoër
bedrag van R9 100 op die faktuur neem en met 8 ure deel kom dit op R1
138 per uur
neer, wat minder is as wat wel vir die advokaat per uur
toegelaat is.
Die takseermeester het die fooie
toegelaat, as volg bereken:-
ITEM
FOOI
BTW TOTAAL
2. Deurgaan
& oorweeg R2 688.00
R242.00 R 2 930.00
1. Voobereiding &
verhoor R13 000.00 R1 170.00 R14 170.00
TOTAAL
R17
100.00
Aangeheg sien ‘n afskrif van die
riglyne ten opsigte van verhoorfooie vir Advokate, wat deur die
takseermeesters van hierdie afdeling
gebruik word.
Dit is die takseermeestr se gestelde
saak en onderwerp ek my aan die beslissing van die hof.”
[
5] In
compliance with the provisions of rule 48(5)(a), the defendant made
written submissions in which it
inter
alia
proposed as follows:
“
Dit is algemene gebruik by die
Vrystaat Balie dat advokate hul rekeninge lewer deur nie ‘n enkele
fooi vir ‘n dag se werk te
vra nie, maar dat hulle hul fooi opbreek
en ‘n uiteensetting gee van die dienste gelewer. In die verlede is
‘n enkele fooi
gemerk deur die advokaat, maar is die jongste
neiging dat hul fooie individueel gespesifiseer word, welke gebruik
al vir ‘n geruime
tydperk aanvaar word.”
[
6] The
defendant’s submission seems to miss an important point made by the
taxing master, viz that whether the specific items
(drawing of heads
and preparation) have been split up or set out as one global figure,
if the total falls within the guidelines,
then the amount will be
allowed and will not be taxed off. The submissions do not
specifically deal with the principle, i.e. that
the fees for the
heads of argument and preparation, should whether set out together as
one item or separated, fall within the stipulated
guidelines. The
submission also fails to deal with the correctness or otherwise, of
the guidelines attached to the taxing master’s
stated case. I will
therefore accept that those guidelines are in fact correct.
[7] It
is apt to refer to rule 69(5) of the Uniform Rules, which provides as
follows:
“
The taxation of advocate’s fees
as between party and party shall be effected by the taxing master in
accordance with this rule
and, where applicable, the tariff. Where
the tariff does not apply, he shall allow such fees (not necessarily
in excess thereof)
as he considers reasonable.”
Also see rule 70(3).
[
8] It
is also apt to refer to the case of
VISSER
v GUBB
1981 (3) SA 753
(C) at 754 H – 755 C, where there principle
governing interference with the exercise of the taxing master’s
discretion was
enunciated as follows:-
“
The court will
not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless it appears
that the taxing master has not exercised his
discretion judicially
and has exercised it improperly, for example by disregarding factors
which he properly should have considered,
or considering matters
which it was improper for him to have considered, or he has
failed to bring his mind to bear on the question in issue; or he has
acted on a wrong principle … The court must be of the view
that
the taxing master was clearly wrong, i.e. its conviction on a review
must be considerably more pronounced than would have
sufficed had
there been an ordinary right of appeal.”
[
9] I
have considered the stated case as well as all the submissions. I
agree with the rationale for the decision of the taxing
master as set
out in her stated case. The principle she is relying on is a
long-established one supported by authorities and there
is no reason
for me to depart therefrom. In
J
D VAN NIEKERK EN GENOTE ING v ADMINISTRATEUR, TRANSVAAL
1994 (1) SA 595
(A) the matter served before the Appellate Division
(as it was then known). The court at p. 601G stated that an hourly
fee for
a service such as the drafting of heads of argument is
inappropriate as it is a method of calculation which places a premium
on
slow and inefficient work and may result in a fee being charged
which is totally out of proportion to the value of the services

actually rendered. In coming to this conclusion the court had cited
with approval the case of
OCEAN
COMMODITIES INC AND OTHERS v STANDARD BANK OF SA LTD AND OTHERS
1984 (3) SA 15
(A) at 19 C – D and 20 E where the following was
stated:
“
Heads of argument, admittedly
documents of great importance, have always been required by the Rules
of this Court, but this fact
has never been considered to be a
sufficient reason for allowing a separate fee for the drawing
thereof, and there is nothing in
the present case which persuades me
that such a fee should have been allowed by the Taxing Master.”
Although the above was
stated in relation to heads of argument prepared in an appeal, my
view is that this principle is applicable
to any application in
respect of which the filing of heads of argument is a requirement.
[10] On
the basis of the aforegoing authorities, I agree with the taxing
master that the perusal and consideration of the heads
of argument
should have been part of counsel’s preparation. This would have
been the case even if counsel had to consider the
heads after a lapse
of time.
See
J
D VAN NIEKER EN GENOTE ING v ADMINISTRATEUR, TRANSVAAL
(supra)
at 601F.
A
separate charge for items 1 & 2 thereof constitutes a
duplication. The approach of the taxing master as set out in
paragraph
2 of her stated case is therefore correct. There is
nothing before me to show that the taxing master has erred in
disallowing
the fee in question. It therefore follows that this
review cannot succeed.
[11] I
have considered the issue of costs, resulting from this review
application. It is indeed so that costs are infrequently
granted in
reviews of this nature. I am of the view that the most appropriate
order would be one in terms of which each party
is to bear its own
costs in the review.
[12] I
therefore make the following order:
The application for
review of taxation is dismissed.
No order is made as to
costs.
__________________
M. B. MOLEMELA, J
/EM