Maja v Absa Bank Limited and Another (968/2012) [2019] ZALMPPHC 50 (29 October 2019)

Maja v Absa Bank Limited and Another (968/2012) [2019] ZALMPPHC 50 (29 October 2019)

The court found that the second Taxing Master acted outside her authority by disregarding the first review judgment, which had already settled the necessity of the disputed costs and expenses. The only issue left for the second Taxing Master was to determine the reasonableness of those expenses, not to revisit their necessity. Disregarding a standing court order is impermissible, and officers of the court are required to comply with such orders until they are set aside by a competent court. The second Taxing Master's allocatur was therefore set aside, and the matter was referred back to her to determine the reasonableness of the specified items only.

Citation
[2019] ZALMPPHC 50
Parties
Plaintiff: Betty Kgomotlokoa Maja; Defendant: Absa Bank Limited; Defendant: Ntjatja Aphane
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 2019
Case Number
968/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Second Review Application of Taxing Master's Allocatur
Outcome
Defendants' review application upheld; second Taxing Master's allocatur set aside; matter referred back for determination of reasonableness of specified items; settled items remain settled; no order as to costs.
Judges
MF Kganyago, MV Semenya
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Taxing Master, Party and Party Costs, Enforcement of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review of Taxing Master Party and Party Costs Enforcement of Court Orders

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Betty Kgomotlokoa Maja

Plaintiff

Absa Bank Limited

Defendant

Ntjatja Aphane

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Second Review Application of Taxing Master's Allocatur

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second Taxing Master was entitled to revisit issues already settled by the first review judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the second Taxing Master was correct in disallowing disputed items in the defendants' bill of costs.
  3. 3 Whether the second Taxing Master acted within her powers by disregarding the first review judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second Taxing Master acted outside her authority by disregarding the first review judgment, which had already settled the necessity of the disputed costs and expenses. The only issue left for the second Taxing Master was to determine the reasonableness of those expenses, not to revisit their necessity. Disregarding a standing court order is impermissible, and officers of the court are required to comply with such orders until they are set aside by a competent court. The second Taxing Master's allocatur was therefore set aside, and the matter was referred back to her to determine the reasonableness of the specified items only.

Court Disposition

Defendants' review application upheld; second Taxing Master's allocatur set aside; matter referred back for determination of reasonableness of specified items; settled items remain settled; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The defendants' review application is upheld.
  • The second Taxing Master's allocatur is set aside and the matter is referred back to her to determine the reasonableness of items 88, 149, 165, 170, 171, 172, 176, 177, 178, 183, 184, 185, 186, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194 and the drawing fee.