Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Joubert Kramer Weihmann Inc - Review of Taxation (3645/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 375 (20 November 2024)
The High Court reviewed a taxation ruling and disallowed costs for 7,000 pages of discovered documents, finding them irrelevant to the exception and strike-out applications.
Pillay and Another v Sewlal N.O and Others (163/2022) [2024] ZATC 8 (31 July 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a review of taxation, upholding perusal fees for correspondent attorneys and finding no basis to interfere with the Taxing Master.
Gqomo v Taxing Master and Another (EL2120/2023) [2024] ZAECELLC 20 (15 May 2024)
The court held that Rule 48 cannot be used to compel a taxing master to proceed with taxation where no allocatur had been made.
Smith and Others v MEC for Health - Mpumalanga (571/2017) [2021] ZAMPMHC 2; 2021 (6) SA 532 (ML) (3 February 2021)
The court held that the taxing master is empowered and obliged to scrutinize all items in a bill of costs, including those settled between the parties, in order to ensure that fees claimed are reasonable and in accordance with the tariff. The notion that settled items are exempt from the taxing master's discretion is incorrect and undermines the integrity of the taxation process. The court found that the applicants' conduct in attempting to pressure the taxing mistress and submitting contradictory statements regarding the drawing of bills and filing of rule 70 certificates was unjustified and…
Source excerpt
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.
Source excerpt
VKB Landbou (Pty) Ltd v Van Deventer (6115/2017) [2020] ZAFSHC 57 (23 January 2020)
Review of taxation dismissed where the applicant failed to object to individual items in time and sought a blanket review after taxation.
Lategan v Alcock and Another (58621/2010) [2019] ZAGPPHC 438 (9 September 2019)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish that the taxation of the Bill of Costs was erroneously granted. The evidence presented by the first respondent, including affidavits from the cost consultant, was uncontroverted due to the applicant's failure to file a replying affidavit. The court accepted that the Bill of Costs, including counsel's fees, was properly served on the applicant's attorneys prior to taxation. The applicant was absent at the taxation and did not object to the inclusion of counsel's fees. The court held that any challenge to the taxed items should have been ra…
Source excerpt
Road Accident Fund v Taxing Master and Another (10977/2013) [2019] ZAGPPHC 305 (15 July 2019)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 48 review of taxation, holding that the Taxing Master correctly allowed bundle-delivery costs because they were covered by the court order.
Kgato Project Management CC v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (924/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 184 (29 November 2018)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 48 review of taxation, holding that only items objected to at taxation may be reviewed and that no basis existed to interfere.
Nongwe v Road Accident Fund (EL48/2013, ECD348/2013) [2017] ZAECELLC 19 (8 December 2017)
The court held that while the plaintiff's legal representatives incurred costs in consulting with expert witnesses, the court is not in a position to determine the reasonableness or necessity of such costs based solely on submissions from the bar. The discretion to assess and allow such costs lies with the taxing master, who is empowered by the Uniform Rules to demand proof and determine whether the services for which payment is demanded are reasonable, necessary, and have actually been rendered. The court declined to make a specific order regarding the travelling, consultation, and accommoda…
Source excerpt
Explore more
