About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZAFSHC 84
|
|
Knipe and Others v Lotz and Others (5081/2014; 4817/2014) [2017] ZAFSHC 84 (8 June 2017)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA,
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case
number: 5081/2014
4817/2014
In
the matter between:
J.D.J
KNIPE
1
st
Applicant
A.B.K
KNIPE
2
nd
Applicant
J.M.D
KNIPE
3
rd
Applicant
and
CAROL
JESSSIE KATHLEEN LOTZ
1st
Respondent
ROBERT
PETRUS JANSEN KNIPE
2nd
Respondent
THE
COMPANY & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMISSION
3rd
Respondent
O.A.
NOORDMAN
N.O.
4th
Respondent
C.B.
ST CLAIR COOPER
N.O.
5th
Respondent
S.M.
RAMPORORO
N.O.
6th
Respondent
O.A.
NOORDMAN
N.O.
7th
Respondent
C.B.
ST CLAIR COOPER
N.O.
8th
Respondent
S.M.
RAMPORORO
N.O.
9th
Respondent
HEARD
ON:
2 JUNE 2017
JUDGMENT
BY:
C REINDERS, J
DELIVERED
ON:
8 JUNE 2017
[1]
Accounts taxed by the taxing master of this court in respect of case
numbers 5081/2014 and 4817/2014 was taken on review by
the
applicants. The matter was reviewed by Molitsoane AJ who dismissed
the application on 9 February 2017.
[2]
The applicants now seek leave to appeal to the full bench of this
division against the whole of the judgement and order of dismissal.
[3]
Although the matter was not referred to open court but instead
adjudicated upon in chambers, a party may seek leave to appeal
against such an order.
See:
Vaaltyn
v Goss
1992 (3) SA 549(ECD)
at 560J-561C.
[4]
The matter served before me as the acting stint of Molitsoane AJ came
to an end. I have perused all the papers before me. In
particular I
have read the judgment by Molitsoane AJ, considered the stated case
by the taxing master, as well as the critique
levelled against her by
the applicant both orally and as set out in the notice of application
for leave to appeal dated 23 February
2017.
[5]
Mr Janse van Rensburg on behalf of the applicants persisted in his
submission that the fees allowed by the taxing master were
unreasonable and exorbitant and that the court erred by not ordering
a referral back to the taxing master. According to Mr Halgryn
on
behalf of the seventh respondent, the taxing master gave a
comprehensive and clear exposition of her allocators in her stated
case, and Molitsoane AJ was correct in not interfering with the
discretion exercised by her.
[6]
Molitsoane AJ addressed all of the items of the taxing master’s
allocators against which the applicants felt aggrieved.
He was not
convinced that the taxing master erred and nor am I. Most of the
critique levelled against the taxing master was to
the effect that
she did not exercise her discretion properly or shouldn’t have
come to certain conclusions. It is trite law
that the function of
taxing an account is exclusively that of the taxing master and the
court merely oversees that the principles
applicable to taxation had
been followed. The court is reluctant to interfere with the decisions
of the taxing master.
See:
Henpet Shades CC v Garzouzie
1998 (3) SA 929
(O) at
935B-C.
President
of the Republic of South Africa v Gauteng Lions Rugby Union
2002 (2) SA 64
(CC).
[7]
I am not convinced that there is any possibility that another court
will come to a different finding, let alone a reasonable
possibility.
It follows that the application should be dismissed and I am
satisfied that the normal cost order should follow.
[8]
Accordingly the following order will issue:
The
application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
______________
C.
REINDERS, J
On
behalf of the Appellants: Adv F.G. Janse van Rensburg
Instructed
by:
Horn
& Van Rensburg Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
On
behalf of the Respondents: Adv. L. Halgryn SC
Instructed
by:
Matsepes
Inc.
BLOEMFONTEIN