About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZALCCT 47
|
|
Khan v Oasis Group Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (C906/12) [2014] ZALCCT 47 (22 September 2014)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
JUDGMENT
Not
reportable
Of
interest to other judges
C
ase
no: C 906/12
In
the matter between:
MUHAMMAD
RIDWAN
KHAN
Applicant
and
OASIS
GROUP HOLDINGS (PTY)
LTD
First respondent
THE
TAXING
MASTER
Second respondent
Delivered
:
22 September 2014
Summary:
Review of taxing master’s ruling.
JUDGMENT
STEENKAMP
J
Introduction
[1]
The applicant, Mr Muhammad Ridwan Khan,
seeks to have a ruling of the taxing master reviewed in terms of rule
25(6).
Background
[2]
On 14 June 2013 Lagrange J handed down a
judgment making a settlement agreement between Khan and Oasis an
order of court in terms
of s 158(1)(c) of the LRA. He did not order
costs. However, a term of the settlement agreement at the CCMA,
entered into on 12
June 2012, is that Khan tendered the costs of
Oasis on a party and party scale, including the costs of two counsel,
to be taxed.
[3]
Oasis asked the taxing master of this Court
to tax the bill of costs on 20 February 2014. She did so on 16 April
2014. She taxed
the costs at a total of R 156 983, 93. That
included an amount of R40 000 for senior counsel and R 55 005
for junior
counsel.
Review grounds
[4]
Khan seeks to have the taxation reviewed on
the following grounds:
4.1
The taxing master did not have jurisdiction
to tax the bill of costs in respect of a matter settled under the
auspices of the CCMA.
4.2
She did not grant Khan the opportunity to
file objections to the bill of costs.
4.3
She awarded counsel’’s full
fees instead of the daily fee permitted in terms of the Magistrate
Court’s rules.
Evaluation
[5]
I will deal with each of the review grounds
in turn. I should add that the review was dealt with in chambers
without the benefit
of any submissions by Oasis, although the review
application and Khan’s submissions were served on its
attorneys.
Jurisdiction
[6]
It is so that the settlement agreement was
entered into under the auspices of the CCMA. But that agreement was
made an order of
court in terms of s 158(1)(c) of the LRA by Lagrange
J on 14 June 2013. On 6 August 2013 the CCMA ruled that it did not
have jurisdiction
to tax the costs as Khan had withdrawn the dispute
before it in terms of the settlement agreement. In those
circumstances, the
decision of the taxing master that she had
jurisdiction to tax the bill of costs is not reviewable. The
settlement agreement is
an order of this Court and in terms of that
order Khan had to pay Oasis its costs in the CCMA “to be
taxed”.
Objection to the bill
of costs
[7]
It appears that Khan filed an objection to
the bill of costs on 29 November 2013. Yet the taxing master states
that Khan “failed
to file and serve a notice of objection to
neither [
sic
]
the bill, nor the taxation thereof at the Labour Court”.
[8]
As a result the taxing master taxed the
bill in Khan’s absence and without having regard to his
submissions. That is a reviewable
irregularity as he was deprived of
the right to a hearing.
Conclusion
[9]
As a result of the taxing master’s
failure to have regard to Khan’s submissions, the bill of costs
must be taxed afresh
in the presence of both parties. It must be done
on the appropriate Magistrate Court scale.
[10]
Oasis did not oppose this application for
review and I make no order as to the costs of this application.
Order
The
taxation of the bill of costs on 16 April 2014 is reviewed and set
aside. The taxation must be set down afresh on notice to
both
parties. The applicant, Khan, must submit his notice of objection to
the registrar and to Oasis within ten days of this order.
_______________________
A J Steenkamp
Judge
APPEARANCES
APPLICANT:
N van der Schyff of Davids and partners, Woodstock.
FIRST
RESPONDENT:
Adams attorneys, Claremont.