Janse van Rensburg and Another v Janse van Rensburg (1293/04) [2005] ZANWHC 3 (2 January 2005)

Janse van Rensburg and Another v Janse van Rensburg (1293/04) [2005] ZANWHC 3 (2 January 2005)

The court found that the bill of costs did not bear the necessary endorsement from the plaintiffs' attorney indicating no objection to taxation in their absence. The Taxing Master acted in good faith but failed to comply with the procedural requirement set out in Practice Note 10. The absence of the endorsement created procedural irregularity and justified the review and setting aside of the allocatur. The court condoned the late filing of the application and ordered that the taxation be set down again before the Taxing Master. No costs order was made as the decision was based on a point not raised by the parties.

Citation
[2005] ZANWHC 3
Parties
Applicant: Machiel Christaan Janse van Rensburg; Applicant: C Janse van Rensburg; Respondent: Precille Henriëtta Janse van Rensburg
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 January 2005
Case Number
1293/04
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Review and Set Aside Allocatur Issued by Taxing Master
Outcome
Application granted; allocatur reviewed and set aside; taxation to be set down again; late filing condoned; no order as to costs.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Allocatur, Court Practice Notes
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review of Allocatur Court Practice Notes

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Machiel Christaan Janse van Rensburg

Applicant

C Janse van Rensburg

Applicant

Precille Henriëtta Janse van Rensburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Review and Set Aside Allocatur Issued by Taxing Master

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master acted properly in issuing the allocatur without the required endorsement from the plaintiffs' attorney.
  2. 2 Whether the allocatur should be reviewed and set aside due to lack of proper consent.
  3. 3 Whether the late filing of the application should be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the bill of costs did not bear the necessary endorsement from the plaintiffs' attorney indicating no objection to taxation in their absence. The Taxing Master acted in good faith but failed to comply with the procedural requirement set out in Practice Note 10. The absence of the endorsement created procedural irregularity and justified the review and setting aside of the allocatur. The court condoned the late filing of the application and ordered that the taxation be set down again before the Taxing Master. No costs order was made as the decision was based on a point not raised by the parties.

Court Disposition

Application granted; allocatur reviewed and set aside; taxation to be set down again; late filing condoned; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The late filing of this application is condoned.
  • The allocatur as determined by the Taxing Master of this Court dated 18 April 2006 is reviewed and set aside.