The Applicant filed an urgent chamber application for stay of execution which was served on the Respondents. The First Respondent filed a notice of opposition prepared by Mudimu Law Chambers. On 20 December 2024, the application was struck off the roll with costs. On the date of the hearing, the First Respondent appeared as a self-actor (without legal representation). Subsequently, the First Respondent filed a notice of taxation with a bill of costs claiming fees and disbursements allegedly due to Mudimu Law Chambers (totaling RTGS $547,963.00 and USD $8,050.00) and an advocate. The Applicant objected to the bill on multiple grounds, including that a self-actor cannot recover legal costs, that many items on the bill related to other matters (not HCH 5667/24), that receipts were not authentic, and that costs were claimed for work done before the application was even served. The parties appeared before the taxing officer three times with postponements at the First Respondent's instance. Photocopied receipts were eventually tendered but the Applicant disputed their authenticity.
The court ordered that: (1) First Respondent be and hereby ordered to prepare a bill of costs for HCH 5667/24 only; (2) The revised bill is to be referred to taxation in terms of the High Court Rules of 2021.
A litigant who appears as a self-actor cannot recover costs for legal preparatory work done by legal practitioners or counsel who did not appear at the hearing. A bill of costs must relate exclusively to the specific matter for which costs were awarded - costs for work done on other matters in a "series of litigation" cannot be included even if they involve the same parties. Costs cannot be claimed for legal work done before the matter was served on the party claiming costs. Each case is distinct and identifiable by its reference number, and costs awarded in relation to a specific case number must be limited to work done on that specific case.
The court observed that the uploading of heads of argument at 15:24 hours on the same day the matter was struck off in the morning "can only be to try and increase the recoverable costs" and that "such conduct borders on fraud." The court also expressed surprise at the suggestion that legal practitioners would instruct an advocate before service was effected on their client, describing this as "unheard of and surprising." While these observations were made in the context of assessing the credibility and propriety of the First Respondent's bill of costs, they constitute obiter dicta as they were not essential to the legal principle being decided.
This case provides important guidance on the taxation of costs in Zimbabwean civil procedure, particularly regarding the limitations on costs recoverable by self-actors and the requirement that bills of costs must strictly relate to the specific matter for which costs were awarded. It reinforces the principle that litigants cannot recover costs for preparatory legal work when they ultimately appear without legal representation, and that costs cannot be claimed for work done before a matter is served or for work relating to other matters. The judgment also emphasizes the court's intolerance for potentially fraudulent conduct in taxation proceedings, such as uploading documents after a matter has been disposed of to inflate costs.