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
>>
2008
>>
[2008] ZAFSHC 131
|
|
Jankowitz and Another v Road Accident Fund (1113/2007) [2008] ZAFSHC 131 (27 November 2008)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE
PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Case No.: 1113/2007
In the case between:
J A JANKOWITZ
R W JANKOWITZ
Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
Defendant
JUDGEMENT:
MOLEMELA, J
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON:
27 NOVEMBER 2008
_____________________________________________________
[1]
This
is a review of taxation brought under the provisions of rule 48 of
the Uniform Rules of Court.
[2] A
bill of costs was taxed by a taxing master, viz Mr Thompson on the
12
th
September 2006. He duly completed the allocator of that bill on the
27
th
February 2007.
[3] The plaintiffs,
being dissatisfied with certain rulings made by the taxing master,
delivered a notice of review in terms of
rule 48 (1) of the rules,
calling upon the taxing master to state a case for the decision of a
judge on the items that were disallowed
by the taxing master.
[4] Subsequent to the
plaintiffs filing the aforesaid notice of review of taxation and
before the filing of the stated case Mr Thompson
left the employment
of the department of Justice. The registrar of the court then
forwarded the file to me for a decision.
[5] Having noted that
the file was forwarded to me prematurely as a stated case had not yet
been filed in compliance with rule 48
(3), I invited both parties to
my chambers with a view to achieving a consensus on how the problem
was to be resolved. Both parties
were adamant that the matter ought
not to be referred for re – taxation and proposed that the
taxing master who had replaced
Mr Thompson proceed to prepare a
stated case.
[6] The two new taxing
masters reported that they would not be able to prepare a stated case
as they did not have the benefit of
the submissions that might have
been made to Mr Thompson during the taxation of the bill and were
thus unaware of what informed
his decision.
[7] In view of the
aforesaid response of the new taxing masters, particularly since the
provisions of rule 48 (3) are peremptory,
I find that I will not be
able to make a decision on this matter without the benefit of a
stated case having duly been prepared
by the taxing master, as well
submissions contemplated in rule 48 (5). As I see it, the only
appropriate way to deal with this
matter is to make an order for re –
taxation of the bill of costs that was taxed on the 27
th
February 2007
[8] I therefore make the
following order.
8.1 The taxation of the
bill of costs and the allocator thereof, attended to by the taxing
master on the 27
th
February 2007 is hereby set aside
8.2 The taxing master is
ordered to set the matter down for taxation
de
novo
within 10 (ten) days from the date of this order and to notify the
parties accordingly.
_
__________________
M. B. MOLEMELA, J
On
behalf of the Applicants:
Mr
J J Maree
Schoeman
en Maree BLOEMFONTEIN
On
behalf of the Defendant
: Mr
H L Buchner
Honey Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
/am