Matsepe NO and Others v Master of the High Court Bloemfontein and Another (Venter and Another Intervening) (4528/2018) [2020] ZAFSHC 176 (27 October 2020)

Matsepe NO and Others v Master of the High Court Bloemfontein and Another (Venter and Another Intervening) (4528/2018) [2020] ZAFSHC 176 (27 October 2020)

The review application was filed out of time, and no application for condonation was made. The applicants did not raise objections before the taxing master, and the taxation was settled by agreement between attorneys. The notices of review failed to comply with Rule 48(2) as they did not relate to what transpired at the taxation and lacked grounds attached to the objected items. As a result, the application for review of taxation cannot succeed.

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 176
Parties
Applicant: Tsiu Vincent Matsepe N.O.; Applicant: Ottlie Anton Noordman N.O.; Applicant: Tsiu Vincent Matsepe; Applicant: Ottlie Anton Noordman; Respondent: Master of the High Court: Bloemfontein; Respondent: Phillip Fourie N.O.; Appellant: Elizabeth Maria Venter; Appellant: Sarel Johannes Wessels
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2020
Case Number
4528/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of Court
Outcome
Application for review of taxation dismissed.
Judges
C Nekosie
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 48, Taxing Master Discretion, Late Filing, Procedural Defects
Civil Procedure Review of Taxation Uniform Rules of Court Rule 48 Taxing Master Discretion Late Filing Procedural Defects

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsiu Vincent Matsepe N.O.

Applicant

Ottlie Anton Noordman N.O.

Applicant

Tsiu Vincent Matsepe

Applicant

Ottlie Anton Noordman

Applicant

Master of the High Court: Bloemfontein

Respondent

Phillip Fourie N.O.

Respondent

Elizabeth Maria Venter

Appellant

Sarel Johannes Wessels

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review application of taxation was filed within the prescribed time period under Rule 48.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants raised objections before the taxing master as required by Rule 48.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds for review in the notices comply with Rule 48(2).

Ratio Decidendi

The review application was filed out of time, and no application for condonation was made. The applicants did not raise objections before the taxing master, and the taxation was settled by agreement between attorneys. The notices of review failed to comply with Rule 48(2) as they did not relate to what transpired at the taxation and lacked grounds attached to the objected items. As a result, the application for review of taxation cannot succeed.

Court Disposition

Application for review of taxation dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.