About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZAGPPHC 241
|
|
Rabie v Rabie (55793/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 241 (13 March 2017)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
Case
number: 55793/2014
Date:13/3/2017
Reportable:
No
Of
interest to other judges: No
Revised.
In
the matter between:
FRANS JOHANNES
RABIE APPLICANT
And
ELMINE
RABIE RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
REVIEW OF TAXATION
MDALANA-MAYISELA
AJ.
(1)
On 13 August 2016 this court dismissed the urgent application brought
by the applicant and ordered the applicant to pay respondent's
costs.
The respondent presented her bill of costs which included fees for
two days in respect of her attorney and counsel. The
applicant's cost
consultant settled the taxed bill with the respondent's cost
consultant and allowed the respondent's attorney
and counsel two day
fees.
(2)
The applicant served a notice of review In terms of Rule 48 of the
Uniform Rules of Court on the respondent's attorney in respect
of the
taxed two day fees of the respondent's attorney and counsel. The
respondent's attorney obtained a writ of execution for
the full taxed
amount and served it on the applicant. The applicant brought the
application to have the execution of the writ stayed
pending the
review application. Two days before the hearing of the application,
the applicant withdrew the application and tendered
costs. The
respondent presented its bill of costs to the taxing master and it
was taxed on 18 March 2016.
(3)
On 15 April 2016 the applicant served a notice in terms of Rule 48 of
the Uniform Rules of Court for the review of taxation.
On 12 December
2016 the respondent served her written submissions in terms of Rule
48(5)(a). The respondent submitted that the
review of taxation
brought by the applicant is out of time and should be dismissed with
costs.
(4)
Rule 48(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court provides that any party
dissatisfied with the ruling of the taxing master as to any
item or
part of an item which was objected to or disallowed
mero motu
by
the taxing master may within fifteen (15} days after the allocator by
notice require the taxing master to state a case for the
decision of
a judge. The applicants notice of review of taxation is dated 14
April 2016 and it was served on 15 April 2016. The
allocator in the
matter is dated 18 March 2016. The applicant failed to serve its
notice of review of taxation within fifteen (15}
days provided for by
Rule 48(1). The applicant had not applied for condonation of the
non-compliance with Rule 48(1).
(5)
In the circumstances, I make the following order:
The
application dated 14 April 2016 is dismissed with costs.
_____________________________
Acting
Judge MP Mdalana-Mayisela