BDP rejects Mogalakwe's taxation review
Tsaone Basimanebotlhe | Friday May 7, 2021 15:53
The BDP said the review application was defective because it sought to challenge the decision of taxing master while there was statutory notice to her representative.
“The application is fatally defective because it seeks to challenge the decision of the taxing master but her statutory representative being the Attorney General has not been cited. Order 58 in no way detracts from the provisions proceedings Act in this regard,” a BDP attorney has said.
Their contention is that Mogalakwe has not filed a statutory notice to sue even though he is suing a public officer for the exercise of her powers. In addition, the BDP attorneys indicated that Mogalakwe has not given reason why he has not complied with the provisions of the State Proceedings Act by serving a notice to sue government. Therefore, their contention was that the application is, “...nullity and is liable to be dismissed with costs”.
The BDP attorneys said the application purports to have been brought in terms of order 58 of the High Court, but it failed to comply with the requirements of Order 58.
Order 58 rule 1 of the High Court states that, “any party dissatisfied with the ruling of the taxing master as to any item or part of any item which was objected to may within 14 court days of the allocator require the taxing master to state a case for the decision of a Judge, which case shall set out each item or part of an item together with the grounds of objection advanced at the taxation, and shall embody any relevant findings of fact by the taxing master; provided that, except with the consent of the taxing master, no case shall be stated where the amount or the total of the amounts which the taxing master has disallowed or allowed as the case may be which the party dissatisfied seeks allowed or disallowed respectively is less than P10 000.00.”
On the other hand, Mogalakwe wants the Court to review and set aside the taxation by the Deputy Registrar.
“The taxing master misdirected herself in the interpretation of the High Court order dated February 27, 2021 at paragraph 40.2 of the judgment which reads as follows: “Costs of this petition shall be borne by the petitioner on the party and party scale, including costs of counsel where employed”.
The taxing master upheld the order and it means that the BDP should recover costs of three attorneys. “The decision is misdirected, and erroneous,” Mogalakwe said. Mogalakwe who lost his election petition had filed an application seeking for the review of his costs and their taxation, which stand at P392, 000. According to Mogalakwe’s attorney, Faustino Ngandu they want Court to review taxation that was done by the High Court Registrar. “We do not agree with the amount of the bill that Mogalakwe has been slapped with. The bill is over P350, 000 which is high.
The Registrar has allowed the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) attorneys to charge per attorney while the judgement only said the case was dismissed with costs. Therefore, the cost should be for one attorney. Mogalakwe ran against Kesebelwang Gaorongwe of the ruling BDP and Ehutsahetse Mokalake of the Umbrella for Democratic Change. When the votes were counted, Gaorongwe came out tops with 674 votes, followed by Mogalakwe with 637 votes while Mokalake managed only 260 votes.