[117] These items are Draw Filing Notice in respect of original Summons and :‘50. Retum of Service 1 ff (1 page) to keep -1 page -53. Attend to file 30 min -54. – –Copy – Peruse acknowledgment.’ [118] The Taxing Master understood the objection as follows: applicant’s that the taxing master questions the necessity of the filling of the ‘Plaintiff objects summons at the court. The taxing master ruled that it was unnecessary to draw a filing notice against a charge for the filing of the summons at the court with the same principle towards reference to the general rule is that all costs that were necessarily incurred by a following. “The party in the conduct of his case should be allowed on taxation, but excludes costs that have been incurred by over caution or any other cost v Stanley 1967(3) SA 24 (T).See –“Jandrell and Van WInsen Civil Practice of the Supreme Court of South Africa 4 ed 1997 “Herbstein –The at 702, that costs on a party and party scale are those costs which have been incurred by a party to legal proceedings and which the other party is ordered to pay.’ The response was formulated thus: submit that this is not attorney/own client costs. The summons and return of service ‘We was send(t) to the legal practitioner by the deputy sheriff and it was therefore necessary to do a filing notice to file the originals at court. The legal practitioner is responsible to make sure that the court file is in order and that all pleadings and notices are on the file. The question posed by the taxing master was the necessity to file the summons at Court. It is respectfully submitted that the Taxing Master should know better. This item should have been allowed.’ [119] In this regard the following exchange occurred at the taxation: WILLIAMS: Yes, that is (intervention) ‘MS TAXING MASTER: (Indistinct) MS WILLIAMS: Yes. TAXING MASTER: That is in, drawing filing notice in the original summons MS BOTES: Ja, 40
[117] These items are :‘50. Draw Filing Notice in respect of original Summons and Retum of Service – 1 ff (1 page) –Copy to keep -1 page -53. Attend to file – 30 min -54. Peruse acknowledgment.’ [118] The Taxing Master understood the applicant’s objection as follows: ‘Plaintiff objects that the taxing master questions the necessity of the filling of the summons at the court. The taxing master ruled that it was unnecessary to draw a filing notice against a charge for the filing of the summons at the court with the same principle towards reference to the following. “The general rule is that all costs that were necessarily incurred by a party in the conduct of his case should be allowed on taxation, but excludes costs that have been incurred by over caution or any other cost –“Jandrell v Stanley 1967(3) SA 24 (T).See “Herbstein and Van WInsen –The Civil Practice of the Supreme Court of South Africa 4 ed 1997 at 702, that costs on a party and party scale are those costs which have been incurred by a party to legal proceedings and which the other party is ordered to pay.’ The response was formulated thus: ‘We submit that this is not attorney/own client costs. The summons and return of service was send(t) to the legal practitioner by the deputy sheriff and it was therefore necessary to do a filing notice to file the originals at court. The legal practitioner is responsible to make sure that the court file is in order and that all pleadings and notices are on the file. The question posed by the taxing master was the necessity to file the summons at Court. It is respectfully submitted that the Taxing Master should know better. This item should have been allowed.’ [119] In this regard the following exchange occurred at the taxation: ‘MS WILLIAMS: Yes, that is (intervention) TAXING MASTER: (Indistinct) MS WILLIAMS: Yes. TAXING MASTER: That is in, drawing filing notice in the original summons MS BOTES: Ja, 40