Designer Studio Investments (Pty) Ltd v Sheriff of the High Court Durban Coastal (2239/2018P) [2018] ZAKZPHC 39 (22 August 2018)

Designer Studio Investments (Pty) Ltd v Sheriff of the High Court Durban Coastal (2239/2018P) [2018] ZAKZPHC 39 (22 August 2018)

The court held that the applicant's letter of 1 December 2017 constituted a valid request to tax the sheriff's account as envisaged by Uniform rule 68(3)(b). The legislature did not require a formal notice of taxation for such a request, and the applicant's informal letter sufficed. The respondent and the taxing officer erred by calculating the 90-day period using calendar days instead of court days. As the request was made on the last court day of the 90-day period, condonation was unnecessary. The direction by the taxing officer for the applicant to apply for condonation was misguided.

Citation
[2018] ZAKZPHC 39
Parties
Applicant: Designer Studio Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sheriff of the High Court Durban Coastal
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 August 2018
Case Number
2239/2018P
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation for Non Compliance With Uniform Rule 68(3)(b) and Late Filing of Heads of Argument.
Outcome
The application for condonation is struck off from the roll. The applicant's request to tax was timeously made and condonation was unnecessary.
Judges
Masipa
Legal Topics
Uniform Rules of Court, Taxation of Sheriff Account, Condonation, Interpretation of Statutes
Civil Procedure Uniform Rules of Court Taxation of Sheriff Account Condonation Interpretation of Statutes

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Designer Studio Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Sheriff of the High Court Durban Coastal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Condonation for Non Compliance With Uniform Rule 68(3)(b) and Late Filing of Heads of Argument.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's request for taxation of the sheriff's account was made within the prescribed 90-day period under Uniform rule 68(3)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the taxing officer was correct in directing the applicant to apply for condonation for late request to tax.
  3. 3 Whether good cause exists to condone the applicant's non-compliance with rule 68(3)(b).

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's letter of 1 December 2017 constituted a valid request to tax the sheriff's account as envisaged by Uniform rule 68(3)(b). The legislature did not require a formal notice of taxation for such a request, and the applicant's informal letter sufficed. The respondent and the taxing officer erred by calculating the 90-day period using calendar days instead of court days. As the request was made on the last court day of the 90-day period, condonation was unnecessary. The direction by the taxing officer for the applicant to apply for condonation was misguided.

Court Disposition

The application for condonation is struck off from the roll. The applicant's request to tax was timeously made and condonation was unnecessary.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is struck off from the roll.
  • The taxing master is directed to set down the sheriff’s account presented by the applicant under case number 1043/2017 for taxation and to tax it accordingly.