Tywini obo Tywini v Road Accident Fund (616/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 83 (1 September 2016)

Tywini obo Tywini v Road Accident Fund (616/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 83 (1 September 2016)

The court held that Rule 48(1) only permits review of specific items objected to or disallowed by the taxing master, not general rulings absent such objections. In this case, the parties agreed to exclude duplicated costs and presented a consolidated bill, with no items objected to or disallowed by the taxing master. The plaintiff’s notice failed to meet the minimum requirements for review as set out in Brener, since it did not identify specific items or grounds of objection. The taxing master did not exercise a discretion subject to review, and the plaintiff’s conduct was inconsistent with bringing the taxation in review. Therefore, the application for review was outside the ambit of...

Citation
[2016] ZAECGHC 83
Parties
Plaintiff: Sakhele Tywini o.b.o Sandlakazi Tywini; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2016
Case Number
616/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
G Goosen
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, Party and Party Costs, Rule 48 Procedure, Costs of Multiple Attorneys
Civil Procedure Review of Taxation Party and Party Costs Rule 48 Procedure Costs of Multiple Attorneys

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sakhele Tywini o.b.o Sandlakazi Tywini

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of Taxation Under Rule 48

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing master’s ruling that only one consolidated bill of costs be allowed is reviewable under Rule 48.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff’s notice in terms of Rule 48(1) meets the minimum requirements for review.
  3. 3 Whether the taxing master exercised a discretion subject to review in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 48(1) only permits review of specific items objected to or disallowed by the taxing master, not general rulings absent such objections. In this case, the parties agreed to exclude duplicated costs and presented a consolidated bill, with no items objected to or disallowed by the taxing master. The plaintiff’s notice failed to meet the minimum requirements for review as set out in Brener, since it did not identify specific items or grounds of objection. The taxing master did not exercise a discretion subject to review, and the plaintiff’s conduct was inconsistent with bringing the taxation in review. Therefore, the application for review was outside the ambit of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.