Kgato Project Management CC v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (924/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 184 (29 November 2018)

Kgato Project Management CC v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (924/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 184 (29 November 2018)

The court found that the applicant had accepted the fees during settlement and did not object to the items at the time of taxation. Rule 48 requires that only items objected to before the Taxing Master may be reviewed. The Taxing Master exercised his discretion properly in awarding costs, and there was no evidence of improper motive or failure to apply his mind. The court held that there was no basis to interfere with the Taxing Master's decision, and the application for review was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 184
Parties
Applicant: Kgato Project Management CC; Respondent: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2018
Case Number
924/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Opperman
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, Costs Award, Taxing Master Discretion
Civil Procedure Review of Taxation Costs Award Taxing Master Discretion

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kgato Project Management CC

Applicant

Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bill of costs settled by the parties can be taken on review under Rule 48.
  2. 2 Whether the Taxing Master erred in allowing certain items, specifically counsel's fees and attorney and client costs.
  3. 3 Whether the court should interfere with the Taxing Master's discretion in awarding costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had accepted the fees during settlement and did not object to the items at the time of taxation. Rule 48 requires that only items objected to before the Taxing Master may be reviewed. The Taxing Master exercised his discretion properly in awarding costs, and there was no evidence of improper motive or failure to apply his mind. The court held that there was no basis to interfere with the Taxing Master's decision, and the application for review was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.