to for service and to costs of original for Court’ – ‘attend file’ – ‘copies keep’ – ‘printing of documents for discovered documents) Court’ – ‘make copies court’ – (plaintiff’s – [56] The taxing master states that he allowed an fee under B2 of the 6th ‘all-inclusive in this regard. Schedule’ [57] While the general application of rule B2 of the 6th Schedule seems to be correct it is the of all the above listed items into an that ‘lumping together’ ‘all-inclusive fee’ seems to be contrary to the requirements set by the tariff formulation of item B2 which provides for and allows for a charge per folio. [58] This ruling can accordingly not be upheld and these items, accordingly, have to be taxed afresh. Ad items 5 - 16, 17, 72, 74,110,111,112,114, [59] The items in issue are for : call to Registrar to enquire about ‘Telephone Summons (not issued yet) call to enquire 5 - – 10 min’ –‘Telephone – min’ ‘Telephone consultation with client -15 call to re: Defendant’s whereabouts min’ – ‘Telephone Tracing Agents to enquire 5 Telephone call to Defendant re: Suitable date for – min’ – rule 37 10 mins (5 mins allowed) telephone call to BD Basson Inc re: Notice – – ‘Further of Representation 5 ( abortive call no objection) - call to Defendant – min’ – ‘Telephone re: Rule 37 -10 - (duplication agreed by Defendant) min’ – [60] It appears firstly that in respect of item 110 half of N$ 84.00 was allowed. This cannot be faulted. [61] The Taxing of the remaining items was based on the view that Master’s defence these were for abortive or unnecessary calls to the office in respect of which Registrar’s it was not clear whether any delay was actually caused by the issuing (of the summons) by the office. Registrar’s
Court’ – ‘attend to file’ – ‘copies for service and to keep’ – ‘printing costs of original for Court’ – ‘make copies of documents for court’ – (plaintiff’s discovered documents) – [56] The taxing master states that he allowed an ‘all-inclusive fee under B2 of the 6th Schedule’ in this regard. [57] While the general application of rule B2 of the 6th Schedule seems to be correct it is the ‘lumping together’ of all the above listed items into an ‘all-inclusive fee’ that seems to be contrary to the requirements set by the tariff formulation of item B2 which provides for and allows for a charge per folio. [58] This ruling can accordingly not be upheld and these items, accordingly, have to be taxed afresh. Ad items 5 - 16, 17, 72, 74,110,111,112,114, [59] The items in issue are for : ‘Telephone call to Registrar to enquire about Summons (not issued yet) – 10 min’ –‘Telephone call to enquire – 5 min’ - ‘Telephone consultation with client re: Defendant’s whereabouts -15 min’ – ‘Telephone call to Tracing Agents to enquire – 5 min’ – Telephone call to Defendant re: Suitable date for rule 37 – 10 mins (5 mins allowed) – ‘Further telephone call to BD Basson Inc re: Notice of Representation – 5 min’ ( abortive call – no objection) - ‘Telephone call to Defendant re: Rule 37 -10 min’ - (duplication agreed by Defendant) – [60] It appears firstly that in respect of item 110 half of N$ 84.00 was allowed. This cannot be faulted. [61] The Taxing Master’s defence of the remaining items was based on the view that these were for abortive or unnecessary calls to the Registrar’s office in respect of which it was not clear whether any delay was actually caused by the issuing (of the summons) by the Registrar’s office.
Hollard%20Insurance%20Company%20of%20Namibia%20Ltd%20v%20Neyschen%20%20(I%20147-2010)[2013]NAHCMD%20325%20(12%20November%202013).docx