De Bruyin v Stoffberg NO and 11 Others (3694/2018) [2021] ZAFSHC 208 (31 August 2021)

De Bruyin v Stoffberg NO and 11 Others (3694/2018) [2021] ZAFSHC 208 (31 August 2021)

The court found that the notice in terms of Rule 48(1) was filed out of time, as the date stamp on the notice was 23 April 2021, which exceeded the 15-day period prescribed by the rules. The instructing attorneys did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy in filing dates and failed to apply for condonation for the late filing. The Taxing Master was correct in her view that condonation was required and could not be granted by her. As a result, the matter was not properly before the court, and the court could not proceed to review the disputed items in the bills of cost.

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 208
Parties
Applicant: A De Bruyin; Respondent: M Stoffberg NO and 11 Others
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 2021
Case Number
3694/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Allocatur Under Rule 48
Outcome
The application for review of the Taxing Master's allocatur was not properly before the court due to late filing and absence of condonation.
Judges
C PAGE
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Rule 48 Review, Condonation for Late Filing
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Rule 48 Review Condonation for Late Filing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A De Bruyin

Applicant

M Stoffberg NO and 11 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Allocatur Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice in terms of Rule 48(1) was filed within the prescribed 15-day period.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for late filing of the notice was required and properly sought.
  3. 3 Whether the matter was properly before the court for review of the Taxing Master's allocatur.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the notice in terms of Rule 48(1) was filed out of time, as the date stamp on the notice was 23 April 2021, which exceeded the 15-day period prescribed by the rules. The instructing attorneys did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy in filing dates and failed to apply for condonation for the late filing. The Taxing Master was correct in her view that condonation was required and could not be granted by her. As a result, the matter was not properly before the court, and the court could not proceed to review the disputed items in the bills of cost.

Court Disposition

The application for review of the Taxing Master's allocatur was not properly before the court due to late filing and absence of condonation.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • No order is made regarding the merits of the disputed items in the bills of cost.