Rabie and Another v Public Protector and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 199; 56029/2018 (10 March 2023)

Rabie and Another v Public Protector and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 199; 56029/2018 (10 March 2023)

The court found that the applicants were notified of Ernst and Young's intention to tax bills of costs as early as May 2022 and were served with notices of set down for taxation in July 2022. Despite repeated refusals by Ernst and Young to stay the taxation, the applicants waited seven months before launching their urgent applications. The court held that this delay was unreasonable and constituted an abuse of the urgent court process. Furthermore, the applicants made unsavoury and gratuitous attacks on the judiciary in their affidavits, warranting a punitive costs order. The applications were therefore struck off the roll, and the applicants were ordered to pay costs on an attorney and...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 199
Parties
Applicant: Virgil Humphrey Rabie; Applicant: Berenice Anthea Rabie; Respondent: Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane (The Public Protector); Respondent: Mr John Steenhuisen (The Democratic Alliance); Respondent: Minister Pravin Gordhan; Respondent: Adv Shamila Batohi (The NPA); Respondent: The South African Police – (DCPI); Respondent: The SIU – Dr Wells/Mr Neave; Respondent: The Law Society of the Northern Provinces; Respondent: Ernst and Young (EY); Respondent: Mr Brian Dames (Previous CEO at Eskom)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2023
Case Number
56029/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Interdict Taxation of Bills of Costs Pending Rescission/review Applications
Outcome
Both urgent applications are struck off the roll. The applicants are ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Motepe
Legal Topics
Interdict, Stay of Taxation, Punitive Costs, Urgency, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Interdict Stay of Taxation Punitive Costs Urgency Abuse of Process

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

Virgil Humphrey Rabie

Applicant

Berenice Anthea Rabie

Applicant

Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane (The Public Protector)

Respondent

Mr John Steenhuisen (The Democratic Alliance)

Respondent

Minister Pravin Gordhan

Respondent

Adv Shamila Batohi (The NPA)

Respondent

The South African Police – (DCPI)

Respondent

The SIU – Dr Wells/Mr Neave

Respondent

The Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Ernst and Young (EY)

Respondent

Mr Brian Dames (Previous CEO at Eskom)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Interdict Taxation of Bills of Costs Pending Rescission/review Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an urgent interdict to stay taxation of bills of costs pending the outcome of rescission/review applications.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing the urgent application is justified.
  3. 3 Whether punitive costs should be awarded due to the applicants' conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were notified of Ernst and Young's intention to tax bills of costs as early as May 2022 and were served with notices of set down for taxation in July 2022. Despite repeated refusals by Ernst and Young to stay the taxation, the applicants waited seven months before launching their urgent applications. The court held that this delay was unreasonable and constituted an abuse of the urgent court process. Furthermore, the applicants made unsavoury and gratuitous attacks on the judiciary in their affidavits, warranting a punitive costs order. The applications were therefore struck off the roll, and the applicants were ordered to pay costs on an attorney and...

Court Disposition

Both urgent applications are struck off the roll. The applicants are ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application instituted by the first and second applicants dated 23 January 2023 is struck off the roll.
  • The first and second applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application referred to in paragraph 1 on the attorney and client scale.