Taxation of legal costs: Is a cost creditor shielded by legal professional privilege?

Taxation of legal costs: Is a cost creditor shielded by legal professional privilege?

Author: Fareed Moosa

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Associate Professor, Department of Mercantile & Labour Law, University of the Western Cape
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 3, p. 623-649
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i3a6

Abstract

Taxation of legal costs in the high courts of South Africa is a quasi-judicial proceeding during which a Taxing Master assesses the fairness of a bill of costs, quantifies the amount payable to a cost creditor, and issues an allocatur which certifies the sum payable by a cost debtor. It is argued that this legal process, which is regulated by Uniform Rule 70 read with Uniform Rule 69, implicates a cost debtor’s fundamental right, under s 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, to fair dispute resolution at any independent forum. In terms of Uniform Rule 70(3B) (a), prior to the enrolment of a bill for taxation, a cost debtor is entitled ‘to inspect such documents or notes pertaining to any item on the bill’. This article argues that the inspection envisaged is a pre-taxation discovery procedure aimed at enabling a cost debtor to determine which items on a bill of costs are objectionable, and the grounds therefor. With reference to relevant judicial precedent and the established principles of interpretation, this article hypothesises that, having regard to the clear, unambiguous, peremptory language of Uniform Rule 70(3B)(a), as well as the purpose sought to be achieved by the right of inspection, the law has, in this context, excluded the operation of the cost creditor’s common-law right to assert legal professional privilege as regards documentation pertaining to any item claimed in the bill of costs. This is unlike the position prevailing at a pre-trial discovery procedure catered for in Uniform Rule 35. This article also argues that, in accordance with s 39(2) of the Constitution, the broad construction of the right of inspection under Uniform Rule 70(3B)(a) advanced here promotes both a cost debtor’s fundamental right in s 34 of the Constitution, and the values of justice and the rule of law which are deeply imbricated in the Bill of Rights.

When the legal pathways for sound financial management and spatial justice collide: The case of South African cities

When the legal pathways for sound financial management and spatial justice collide: The case of South African cities

Author: Anél du Plessis

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Professor of Law and NRF South African Research Chair in Cities, Law and Environmental Sustainability, Faculty of Law, North-West University
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 3, p. 650-677
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i3a7

Abstract

This article probes one aspect of spatial (in)justice and slow spatial transformation in South Africa’s cities. The focus is not so much on case studies or an analysis of persisting spatial injustices. Instead, the article focuses on the legal premises and the apparently colliding legal pathways for sound municipal finance management and spatial justice. It specifically questions, through a mixed research method, the extent to which the co-existence of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (‘SPLUMA’) and the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003 (‘MFMA’), as two Acts in the suite of post-apartheid South African local government legislation, runs the risk of thwarting local government efforts to transform social and physical space in the country’s cities. This question is considered through an exploratory review of the Acts, empirical findings, and a consideration of the limited theory on the interoperability of laws.

Constitutional futures and the South African demos: Time for some univocal sovereignty?

Constitutional futures and the South African demos: Time for some univocal sovereignty?

Author: Tracy-Lynn Field

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Claude Leon Chair in Earth Justice and Stewardship, School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 3, p. 678-716
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i3a8

Abstract

This article engages and extends the proposition that the debate on constitutionalism in the postcolony should restore the sovereignty of the demos to a central position. The notion of a unified South African demos is contested, but the arguments against working with the presently constituted unified demos are not overwhelming. With democratic sovereignty as the key focus, the question is how the demos’ lifeblood of present consent can be injected into the current South African constitutional order. Drawing on Grewal & Purdy’s development of Tuck’s reconstruction of original constitutionalism, the article presents six variables for understanding democratic self-rule over time: unified and splintered sovereignty; univocal and multitudinous constitution-making; popular authorship; and present consent. Taking into account Arato’s post-sovereign model of constitution-making, the article argues that South Africa’s constitutional order may be leaning too far in the direction of splintered sovereignty, multitudinous constitution-making and a preoccupation with the act of founding. Instead, the unified sovereign, univocal constitution-making and the imperative of present consent need to be firmly placed on the agenda. The article concludes by considering four ways in which the unified sovereign could be brought back into the realm of constitution-making in South Africa.