Matsaung v Mathedimosa and Others (1101/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 33 (27 June 2022)

Matsaung v Mathedimosa and Others (1101/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 33 (27 June 2022)

The court found that the Taxing Master was clearly wrong in allowing costs on items 8 to 10, 12 and 13 of the respondents' bill of costs, as these related to the Rule 41(1)(c) application for which there was no court order sanctioning costs. The applicant's amended notice of withdrawal only tendered wasted costs for the withdrawal of taxation, not for the Rule 41(1)(c) application, and the respondents accepted this limited tender. Regarding the respondents' review, the Taxing Master conceded error on item 3, which the court upheld, but the court found no reason to interfere with the Taxing Master's discretion on items 2 and 5, as the respondents had prior knowledge of the vouchers and...

Citation
[2022] ZALMPPHC 33
Parties
Applicant: Lesiba Ezekiel Matsaung; Respondent: Merriam Ngaoko Mathedimosa; Respondent: Mpokile Lesetja Samuel Maele; Respondent: Karel Venter; Respondent: Andre Kotze; Respondent: Joshua Van Der Merwe; Respondent: The Semomano Community Association (and all the members and/or affiliates under its authority); Respondent: Victory Mokumo; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2022
Case Number
1101/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Rulings on Bill of Costs
Outcome
Applicant's review application upheld on all items; respondents' review application partially upheld only on item 3.
Judges
Kganyago
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Taxing Master, Rule 41 Application, Withdrawal of Taxation
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review of Taxing Master Rule 41 Application Withdrawal of Taxation

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesiba Ezekiel Matsaung

Applicant

Merriam Ngaoko Mathedimosa

Respondent

Mpokile Lesetja Samuel Maele

Respondent

Karel Venter

Respondent

Andre Kotze

Respondent

Joshua Van Der Merwe

Respondent

The Semomano Community Association (and all the members and/or affiliates under its authority)

Respondent

Victory Mokumo

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxing Master's Rulings on Bill of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Master was clearly wrong in allowing costs on items 8 to 10, 12 and 13 relating to the Rule 41(1)(c) application.
  2. 2 Whether the Taxing Master erred in disallowing perusal costs and other items claimed by the respondents in their bill of costs.
  3. 3 Whether there was a court order sanctioning costs for the Rule 41(1)(c) application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Taxing Master was clearly wrong in allowing costs on items 8 to 10, 12 and 13 of the respondents' bill of costs, as these related to the Rule 41(1)(c) application for which there was no court order sanctioning costs. The applicant's amended notice of withdrawal only tendered wasted costs for the withdrawal of taxation, not for the Rule 41(1)(c) application, and the respondents accepted this limited tender. Regarding the respondents' review, the Taxing Master conceded error on item 3, which the court upheld, but the court found no reason to interfere with the Taxing Master's discretion on items 2 and 5, as the respondents had prior knowledge of the vouchers and...

Court Disposition

Applicant's review application upheld on all items; respondents' review application partially upheld only on item 3.

Orders

  • The applicant's review application is upheld on all items brought in his review application.
  • The respondents' review application is partially upheld only on item 3.