Company sues over US$16 000 legal fees

Fidelis Munyoro

Chief Court Reporter

A DISPUTE over US$16 000 in legal fees pitting a construction company against a taxing officer, an independent person setting the fees in a dispute, has spilled into the High Court, with the company seeking a review of the bill of costs, which it claimed was improper and invalid.

Augustus Close Holdings is seeking a review of the taxing officer’s decision last month to allow a lawyer’s fees in a case where a judge has not granted costs of suit.

Augustus Close says it was levied with costs of suit on a legal practitioners and client scale after being issued with a provisional order to stop its construction of cluster houses in Mount Pleasant, Harare.

Most orders of costs in civil court cases do not include the legal fees of the winning party, just the far lower associated costs. But it is possible to have the approved, or taxed, legal fees paid by the winner to their lawyers charged to the loser.

In it’s application for review filed at the High Court on Monday, Augustus listed the taxing officer, The Faramakas Trust, Anthony Antoniou, Paidamoyo Kuruneri, Carol Hobbart, John George Sampson and City of Harare Director of Works as respondents.

Augustus Holdings, through its director Mr Jialin He, argues that the taxing officers erred at law by accepting the bill of costs from that array of respondents without a court order granting the costs claimed.

In August last year, High Court Judge Justice Neville Wamambo in case Number HC 4608/23 granted an interim order in favour of these respondents to temporarily stop Augustus Close Holdings from carrying out construction works and commercial activities at stand 531 Mt Pleasant (also known as 5 Augustus Close).

To date the interim order is yet to be confirmed. However, the respondents billed Augustus Close Holdings US$16 500 in relation to the interim order, which had been granted in their favour.

Mr Jialin stated in his court papers that Justice Wamambo did not award costs under the interim relief granted.

He argues that given that the interim order is yet to be confirmed, the issue of costs does not arise. “The first respondents in the circumstances committed a gross irregularity at law in accepting second to fifth respondents’ bill of costs absent a court order granting the costs claimed,” said Mr Jialin.

“In the circumstances the bill of costs which was made on June 25, 2024 by the first respondent ought to be set aside on the basis that there is no court order that grants an order for costs.”

He said the taxing officer has no power at law to grant costs without a court order. But lawyers representing the respondents, Venturas and Samukange, said at a meeting held in July 2024, Mr Jialin agreed to pay the agreed taxation costs of US$16 500 that had been agreed before the taxing officer.

The issue for determination at the High Court is whether or not the taxing officer had proceeded irregularly by failing to consider that no court order was made instructing Augustus Close to pay the costs of suit and in particular on a legal practitioner and client scale.