290 (SC) followed Judge finding that s 23(1) of the Competition Act 2 of 2003, – Article 23(2) and (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the Namibian Constitution do not contradict the well-founded principles Judge – concluding that taxing master was not wrong in disallowing fees claimed by defendant (a lay litigant representing himself) and also in requesting the defendant to establish proper proof, to the satisfaction of the taxing master, that the disbursements claimed are actual and reasonably incurred. ORDER The taxing master was not wrong in: disallowing fees claimed by the defendant; and requesting the defendant to provide a more specific tax invoice on each item representing a disbursement charged in the defendant’s bill of JUDGMENT PARKER AJ: [1] The taxing master was requested to state a case in terms of rule 48(1) of the rules of court for a decision of a judge on the items, fees and disbursements following objections raised by the defendant against the taxing master disallowing and refusing certain items and fees during a taxation held on 27 March 2013. The defendant, a lay litigant representing himself, has submitted contentions pursuant to rule 48(2) of the rules. [2] A starting point in the determination of the stated case by the taxing master in terms of rule 48(1) of the rules of court is as follows. A lay person, suing personally, cannot recover costs. (In re Morkel v Howell (1885) 6 NLR 156) He or she is entitled only to recover disbursements. Thus, where a lay litigant is awarded costs, he or she
290 (SC) followed – Judge finding that s 23(1) of the Competition Act 2 of 2003, Article 23(2) and (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the Namibian Constitution do not contradict the well-founded principles – Judge concluding that taxing master was not wrong in disallowing fees claimed by defendant (a lay litigant representing himself) and also in requesting the defendant to establish proper proof, to the satisfaction of the taxing master, that the disbursements claimed are actual and reasonably incurred. ORDER The taxing master was not wrong in: disallowing fees claimed by the defendant; and requesting the defendant to provide a more specific tax invoice on each item representing a disbursement charged in the defendant’s bill of JUDGMENT PARKER AJ: [1] The taxing master was requested to state a case in terms of rule 48(1) of the rules of court for a decision of a judge on the items, fees and disbursements following objections raised by the defendant against the taxing master disallowing and refusing certain items and fees during a taxation held on 27 March 2013. The defendant, a lay litigant representing himself, has submitted contentions pursuant to rule 48(2) of the rules. [2] A starting point in the determination of the stated case by the taxing master in terms of rule 48(1) of the rules of court is as follows. A lay person, suing personally, cannot recover costs. (In re Morkel v Howell (1885) 6 NLR 156) He or she is entitled only to recover disbursements. Thus, where a lay litigant is awarded costs, he or she
Standard%20Bank%20Limited%20v%20Nationwide%20Detectives%20and%20Professional%20Practitioners%20CC%20(I%202051-2007)[2013]NAHCMD%20200(17%20July%202013).docx