REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 51086/2017
REPORTABLE: NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JU
REVISED: NO
23JUNE 2026
DATE
PJ NIEMANN OBO M MAKHUBELA
and
THE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
FOR HEALTH OF THE GAUTENG
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
JUDGMENT: TAXATION REVIEW
FRANCIS-SUBBIAH J:
Applicant
Resp ondent
Page 1 of 8
[1] This is an application to review the ruling of the Taxing Master. The review
relates to a reservation fee charged by an expert witness for reserving time to attend
and give expert evidence at trial.
[2] The matter was set down for trial for a period of three (3) days, commencing on
15 August 2023. The matter was settled on the first day of trial. Therefore, no evidence
was led in the matter.
[3] The applicants submit that the Taxing Master erred in her ruling to allow the
"bare minimum" for an expert witness who would have prepared, qualified himself and
attended court to give evidence.
[4] The court order recording the settlement between the parties provided for the
granting of expert witness fees. The order records the following:
"The reasonable preparation , qualification , reservation and attendance fees, if any,
of all the plaintiff's experts of whose reports had been ..... "
[5] The expert's invoice includes a charge described as "STANDBY" in the amount
of R140 869,57. This charge is understood to be a standby or reservation fee and
accordingly falls within the category of "reservation fees" as contemplated in the court
order. It does not constitute a fee for the expert's preparation or qualification.
[6] The Taxing Master avers that the applicant failed to provide objective proof
(such as diary entries, patient cancellation records, or financial documentation)
Page 2 of 8
demonstrating that the expert suffered loss of income or was out of pocket because of
having reserved a trial date. The applicant relied solely on the expert's invoice.
[7] The Taxing Master further states that she found that the invoice, in the absence
of a detailed breakdown of preparation hours and/or proof of forfeited income, applied
the statutory tariff as provided by the Tariff of Allowances Payable to Witnesses in Civil
Cases. 1
(8) The tariff of allowances paid to witnesses read with the Uniform Rules of Court2
provide that the party paying the fees, only pays the reasonable and necessary
litigation costs and not every full expense the successful party chose to incur.
[9] Uniform Rule 70(3) it states that:
"With a view to affording the party who has been awarded an order for costs a full
indemnity for all costs reasonably incurred by him in relation to his claim or defence
and to ensure that all such costs shall be borne by the party against whom such order
has been awarded, the Taxing Master shall, on every taxation, allow all such costs,
charges and expenses as appear to him to have been necessary or proper for the
attainment of justice or for defending the rights of any party, but save as against the
party who incurred the same, no costs shall be allowed which appear to the Taxing
Master to have been incurred or increased through over-caution, negligence or
mistake, or by payment of a special fee to an advocate, or special charges and
1 GN R 394, GG 30953 I I April 2008
2 RuJes ReguJating the onduct of the Proceedings of the Provincial and Local Divi ions of the High Court of
outh Africa, Government Gazette 999 Government Notice R.48, 12 January 1965
Page 3 of 8
expenses to witnesses or to other persons or by other unusual expenses.n
[1 O] In terms of Rule 70(3), the Taxing Master's role is to allow only such costs as
appear to the Taxing Master to have been necessary or proper for the attainment of
justice or for defending the rights of any party. The Taxing Master is further required to
disallow costs which appear to have been incurred through over-caution, or which
constitute unusual expenses.
(11] This is further confirmed in Bandara Investments CC and Another v Palmer and
Others3 wherein the court stated that:
" ... taxation must allow reasonable remuneration for work necessarily and
properly performed, while excluding excess or overreaching. "
(12] In the current case, the Taxing Master deemed the claim of R140 869. 57 to be
excessive and an unusual expense considering that the reservation fee was only for
one day. Further, the applicant failed to prove the reasonableness of a reservation fee
particularly given that the matter was settled on the first day.
[13] In the absence of proof of forfeited income as contemplated in the applicable
tariff, the Taxing Master found that she was bound by the prescribed tariff applicable
to witness fees. In these circumstances , the Taxing Master contends that the
allowance of R2,084.00 was the lawful maximum amount that could reasonably be
allowed as prescribed.4
3 (205/2024; 61 3/2024) (2026] ZASCA 85 ( 19 June 2026) al para 4
4 GG NO. R 41096 , 06 September 2017
Page 4 of 8
[14] In comparable foreign jurisdictions, the Canadian Courts have considered the
recoverability of expert standby or cancellation fees. In Dhillon v. Bowering, 5 the
presiding officer referred to Mohr v. Dent 6, wherein it was stated at paragraph 55 that:
"For that reason before awarding fees for time lost because of a short cancellation of
a trial, the Taxing officer should satisfy himself that there was in fact a loss suffered by
the doctor which justifies him in rendering a fee payable by the defendant."
[15] The court in Dhillon v. Bowering 7 further held:
"I must satisfy myself that, in respect of the amount charged for the cancelled court
appearances, the doctors could not have used the time suddenly available to them in
remunerative activities (per Mohr v. Dent, supra)."
[16] These authorities illustrate that a claim for a standby, reservation, or
cancellation fee is not automatically recoverable. Rather, the claimant bears the
burden of demonstrating that the expert suffered an actual loss of income or
opportunity as a result of reserving time for the trial and that the time so reserved could
not reasonably have been utilised for other remunerative work.
[17] In the South Australian Court in Lawrence v Sambevski,6 it was held that the
assessment of witness fees requires the Court to consider a range of factors in
5 20 13 BCSC 1178 at paras 45-46
6 [1983) B.C.J. No. 323 (S.C.)
7 2013 BCSC 11 78 at para 57
8No. DCCrY-96- 1427 Judgment No. D3548 [1997] SAD 3; [1997] SADC 3548 (17 January 1997)
Page 5 of a
determining what constitutes a reasonable fee. These factors include the actual loss
incurred by the witness, the scale of charges recommended by the Australian Medical
Association, and the tariff of fees prescribed for professional, scientific or other expert
witnesses on a daily basis. While the scale of charges provides a maximum daily rate
the Court retains a discretion to allow a higher amount where such an award is
considered just and reasonable in the circumstances.
[18] In Bandara Investments CC and Another v Palmer and Others9 it was confirmed
that the Taxing Master is vested with significant discretion in deciding whether the
costs claimed in a bill of costs are reasonable. The court further asserted that the
discretion exercised by a Taxing Master is exercised according to the principle that
costs must be reasonable and comply with the applicable tariff, unless there are
justified deviations.
[19] In Aswegen v Lombard 10• the court confirmed the principle that witness
attendance is generally regarded as a civic duty and that a party may not recover
excessive witness fees above the statutory tariff unless proper justification exists for
such departure.
[20) It is well established that a Taxing Master exercises a discretion to allow costs
that are necessarily incurred in litigation. However, a reviewing court is entitled to
interfere with the Taxing Master's decision when it is based on a misdirection of law,
a misconception of the facts or circumstances of the matter, or an incorrect
9 (205/2024; 61 3/2024) [2026] ZASCA 85 (1 9 June 2026) at para 4
10 1965(3) SA 613 (A)
Page 6 of 8
appreciation of court practice .11
[21] It is accepted as set out in Ocean Commodities Inc and Others v Standard Bank
of SA Ltd and Others 12, that a Taxing Master's decision will be interfered with on review
only where the court is clearly satisfied that the ruling was clearly wrong. In the present
matter I can find no basis upon which to fault the Taxing Master in the exercise of her
discretion as being clearly wrong. On every taxation, the Taxing Master is entrusted
with the duty of allowing such costs, charges , and expenses as appea r necessary or
proper for the attainment of justice or the protection of the rights of the parties. 13 and
this has clearly been done.
[22) For the above reasons the following order is made:
The review is dismissed. The decision of the Taxing Master is confirmed and
upheld.
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
11 Sonny and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Another (33185/20 15) [201 6]
ZAKZPHC I 07 (12 December 2016) at para 10.2 and l I referring to Cash Wholesalers, Ltd v Natal
Pharmaceutical Society and The Taxing Master 1937 NPD 418 at 425.)
12 Rule 70 of tl1e Uniform Rules of Court
13 1984 (3) SA 15 (A)
Page 7 of 8
Attorneys for the Applicant:
Attorneys for the Respondent:
Wolvaardt Inc. Attorneys
The State Attorney, Pretoria
This judgment has been delivered by uploading it to the court online digital data base
of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria and by e-mail to the attorneys of record of the parties.
The deemed date and time for the delivery is 23 June 2026.
Page 8 of 8