Hennie de Beer Game Lodge CC v Waterbok Bosveld Plaas CC and Another

The matter arose from a protracted dispute between the parties concerning the erection of a camp in a private nature reserve. Waterbok Bosveld Plaas CC sought and ultimately obtained an interdict against Hennie de Beer Game Lodge CC in the High Court. Subsequent applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal and then to the Constitutional Court were refused, with costs. After the Constitutional Court dismissed the leave to appeal, Waterbok presented a bill of costs. The only disputed item was counsel’s fee for drafting a 62-page affidavit opposing leave to appeal in the Constitutional Court. Counsel charged for 71 hours, discounted to 61 hours, which the Taxing Master largely allowed. Hennie de Beer sought a review of the taxation, arguing that the time allowed was excessive given counsel’s prior involvement in the same matter in earlier courts.

The Taxing Master’s allocatur in respect of items 21–33 of the respondents’ bill of costs was set aside and replaced with an allowance of 20 hours at R1 200 per hour. The respondents were ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the review of taxation.

The case is significant for clarifying the approach to time-based billing in party-and-party costs before the Constitutional Court. It reinforces that time spent by counsel is not determinative of reasonable fees and that courts will scrutinise excessive charges, particularly where work overlaps substantially with prior proceedings. It also affirms the Constitutional Court’s willingness to intervene directly in taxation where the Taxing Master fails to strike an equitable balance.