De Jager and Another v Robynne Zevenster NO and Another (4114/2016) [2021] ZALMPPHC 60 (13 September 2021)

De Jager and Another v Robynne Zevenster NO and Another (4114/2016) [2021] ZALMPPHC 60 (13 September 2021)

The court found that the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default in attending the taxation, as the notice was mistakenly sent to their Pretoria correspondent due to parallel litigation. However, the application was not bona fide, as the applicants delayed for seven months before instituting proceedings and only acted when the writ of execution was re-issued. The applicants failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence with prospects of success, as the first respondent had already abandoned the disputed items and the applicants did not specify objections to the remaining items. The court held that it could not interfere with the Taxing Master's decision without clear...

Citation
[2021] ZALMPPHC 60
Parties
Applicant: Carel Frederik De Jager; Applicant: Johannes Jacobus Frederik Peyper; Respondent: Robynne Zevenster NO; Respondent: The Taxing Master Polokwane
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2021
Case Number
4114/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Set Aside Taxation and Allocator
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kganyago
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Rescission of Default Taxation, Bill of Costs Dispute
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Rescission of Default Taxation Bill of Costs Dispute

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carel Frederik De Jager

Applicant

Johannes Jacobus Frederik Peyper

Applicant

Robynne Zevenster NO

Respondent

The Taxing Master Polokwane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Set Aside Taxation and Allocator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxation of costs by the Taxing Master should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the allocator dated 3 September 2018 should be set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have satisfied the requirements for rescission of default taxation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default in attending the taxation, as the notice was mistakenly sent to their Pretoria correspondent due to parallel litigation. However, the application was not bona fide, as the applicants delayed for seven months before instituting proceedings and only acted when the writ of execution was re-issued. The applicants failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence with prospects of success, as the first respondent had already abandoned the disputed items and the applicants did not specify objections to the remaining items. The court held that it could not interfere with the Taxing Master's decision without clear...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants’ application is dismissed with costs.