Dlwathi v Taxing Master and Others (2021/51100) [2025] ZAGPJHC 250 (10 March 2025)

Dlwathi v Taxing Master and Others (2021/51100) [2025] ZAGPJHC 250 (10 March 2025)

The application was dismissed as it was based on a misinterpretation of section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act and the procedure under rule 48. The applicant was not entitled to review the Taxing Master's allocator because he had not issued the required notice nor objected to any item during taxation. The right to tax a bill of costs is not suspended by pending appeal proceedings; only execution is suspended. The request to set aside the punitive costs order was not competent in review proceedings, as it formed part of the judgment subject to appeal. The applicant conceded in oral argument that his case had no merit and that he should have withdrawn the application after receiving...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 250
Parties
Applicant: Steve Dlwathi; Respondent: The Taxing Master; Respondent: Daytona (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Shareholders of the Second Respondent
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2025
Case Number
2021/51100
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
JM Berger
Legal Topics
Review of Taxing Master, Costs Order, Rule 48 Procedure, Section 18 Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Review of Taxing Master Costs Order Rule 48 Procedure Section 18 Superior Courts Act

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steve Dlwathi

Applicant

The Taxing Master

Respondent

Daytona (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Shareholders of the Second Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master's ruling on the bill of costs was premature or unlawful under section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to review the Taxing Master's allocator under rule 48.
  3. 3 Whether the punitive costs order granted by Strijdom AJ could be set aside in these proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed as it was based on a misinterpretation of section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act and the procedure under rule 48. The applicant was not entitled to review the Taxing Master's allocator because he had not issued the required notice nor objected to any item during taxation. The right to tax a bill of costs is not suspended by pending appeal proceedings; only execution is suspended. The request to set aside the punitive costs order was not competent in review proceedings, as it formed part of the judgment subject to appeal. The applicant conceded in oral argument that his case had no merit and that he should have withdrawn the application after receiving...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the second and third respondents' costs, including the costs of counsel.