Mofokeng and Another v Taxing Master of the Free State High Court and Others (4685/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 350 (5 November 2024)

Mofokeng and Another v Taxing Master of the Free State High Court and Others (4685/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 350 (5 November 2024)

The Court found that the Applicants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for their default in filing the Notice of Opposition to the Bill of Costs within the prescribed period. The explanation did not cover the entire period of default, and no reason was given why their attorney in Bloemfontein could not have attended to the matter before falling ill. Rule 42 does not apply to the allocatur issued by the Taxing Master, and the proper procedure for challenging items in the allocatur is by way of review under Rule 48. The Court further held that it cannot set aside the entire allocatur where only certain items are challenged, and the Applicants have not demonstrated...

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 350
Parties
Applicant: Thabo Moses Mofokeng; Applicant: Mabatho Mofokeng; Respondent: Taxing Master of the Free State High Court; Respondent: The Ridge Body Corporate; Respondent: The Trustees of the Ridge Body Corporate; Respondent: National Real Estate (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 November 2024
Case Number
4685/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Rescission and Setting Aside of Allocatur Issued by Taxing Master
Outcome
Application for rescission and setting aside of the allocatur dismissed with costs.
Judges
Loubser
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Rescission of Allocatur, Late Filing of Opposition, Rule 42, Rule 48
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Rescission of Allocatur Late Filing of Opposition Rule 42 Rule 48

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabo Moses Mofokeng

Applicant

Mabatho Mofokeng

Applicant

Taxing Master of the Free State High Court

Respondent

The Ridge Body Corporate

Respondent

The Trustees of the Ridge Body Corporate

Respondent

National Real Estate (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Rescission and Setting Aside of Allocatur Issued by Taxing Master

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late filing of the Notice of Opposition to the Bill of Costs constitutes grounds for rescission of the allocatur.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the late filing amounts to good cause for rescission.
  3. 3 Whether Rule 42 applies to the allocatur issued by the Taxing Master.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Applicants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for their default in filing the Notice of Opposition to the Bill of Costs within the prescribed period. The explanation did not cover the entire period of default, and no reason was given why their attorney in Bloemfontein could not have attended to the matter before falling ill. Rule 42 does not apply to the allocatur issued by the Taxing Master, and the proper procedure for challenging items in the allocatur is by way of review under Rule 48. The Court further held that it cannot set aside the entire allocatur where only certain items are challenged, and the Applicants have not demonstrated...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission and setting aside of the allocatur dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission and setting aside of the allocatur made by the Taxing Master on 29 April 2024 under case number 4685/2023 is dismissed.
  • The Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents on the party and party scale, including the fees of counsel on scale B.