• Law Reports
  • Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated v South African Forestry Company …

Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated v South African Forestry Company Soc Limited and Others (365/2023) [2025] ZASCA 118 (15 August 2025)

57 Reportability
Civil Procedure
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Costs — Review of taxation — Party not in attendance and fails to object before the taxing master — Applicant sought to review taxation under SCA rule 17 after failing to attend the taxation hearing and not objecting to any items — Court held that review procedure under rule 17 is only available for items objected to before the taxing master — Application dismissed with costs.

Comprehensive Summary

Case Note


Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated v South African Forestry Company Soc Limited and Others (365/2023) [2025] ZASCA 118 (15 August 2025)


Reportability


This case is reportable due to its significance in clarifying the procedural requirements for reviewing a taxation decision made by a taxing master. The judgment emphasizes the necessity for parties to attend taxation proceedings and object to items in the bill of costs at that stage, thereby reinforcing the procedural integrity of the taxation process. The ruling serves as a precedent for future cases involving similar procedural issues, particularly regarding the invocation of review procedures under the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) rules.


Cases Cited



  • Mcunu v Southern Insurance Association Ltd 1977 (2) SA 18 (SE)

  • Daywine Properties (Pty) Ltd v Murphy and Another 1991 (3) SA 216 (D)

  • Gran-Or (Edms) Bpk v Bevan 1969 (2) SA 87 (T)

  • Grűnder v Grűnder and others 1990 (4) SA 680 (C)

  • Barnard v Taxing Master of the High Court of SA (TPD) and Others [2005] 2 All SA 485 (T)


Legislation Cited



  • Supreme Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 17


Rules of Court Cited



  • Supreme Court of Appeal Rule 17


HEADNOTE


Summary


The Supreme Court of Appeal addressed an application for the review of a taxation decision made by a taxing master. The applicant, Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated, failed to attend the taxation proceedings and did not object to the items taxed. The court held that the applicant could not invoke the review procedure under SCA Rule 17 due to the absence of objections during the taxation process.


Key Issues


The key legal issues addressed in this case include the procedural requirements for reviewing a taxation decision, the necessity of attending taxation proceedings, and the implications of failing to object to items during the taxation process.


Held


The court held that the application for review was dismissed with costs, as the applicant did not attend the taxation and failed to object to the taxed items, thus precluding the invocation of the review procedure.


THE FACTS


The applicant, Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated, sought to review a taxation decision made by the taxing master after their application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The taxing master conducted the taxation on an unopposed basis due to the applicant's absence. The applicant later attempted to invoke the review procedure under SCA Rule 17, but the taxing master declined to state a case for review, leading to the applicant seeking condonation for the late filing of the review application.


THE ISSUES


The court had to decide whether the applicant could invoke the review procedure under SCA Rule 17 despite not attending the taxation or objecting to the taxed items. The legal question centered on the interpretation of the rule and the procedural requirements for a valid review of a taxation decision.


ANALYSIS


The court analyzed the provisions of SCA Rule 17, which stipulates that a party dissatisfied with a ruling of the taxing master may only seek a review if they had previously objected to the items taxed. The court emphasized that the rule does not allow for a review in cases where a party fails to attend the taxation. The court further noted that the taxing master's allocatur is a quasi-judicial act that requires the presence of parties to ensure fairness in the process. The absence of the applicant during the taxation proceedings meant that they could not later challenge the items allowed by the taxing master.


REMEDY


The court dismissed the application for review with costs, affirming the decision of the taxing master and reinforcing the importance of procedural compliance in taxation matters.


LEGAL PRINCIPLES


The key legal principles established in this case include the necessity for parties to attend taxation proceedings and object to items in the bill of costs at that stage. The ruling clarifies that a failure to do so precludes the possibility of invoking a review procedure under SCA Rule 17, thereby upholding the integrity of the taxation process and the decisions made by taxing masters.

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Case no: 365/2023

In the matter between:
MACBETH ATTORNEYS INCORPORATED APPLICANT

and

SOUTH AFRICAN FORESTRY COMPANY
SOC LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT
KOMATILAND FORESTS SOC LIMITED SECOND RESPONDENT
TSEPO MONAHENG THIRD RESPONDENT
SIYABONGA MPONTSHANA FOURTH RESPONDENT
THE TAXING MASTER FIFTH RESPONDENT

Neutral citation: Macbeth A ttorneys I ncorporated v S outh A frican F orestry
Company Soc Limited and Others (365/2023) [2025] ZASCA 118
(15 August 2025)
Coram: PONNAN JA
Delivered: 15 August 2025
Summary: Costs – review of taxation – party not in attendance and fails to object
before the taxing master – cannot thereafter invoke review of t axation procedure in
terms of SCA rule 17.

2

___________________________________________________________________

ORDER
___________________________________________________________________

The application is dismissed with costs
___________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
Ponnan JA
[1] This application, ostensibly a review of taxation in terms of rule 17 of the rules
of this Court (SCA rules), has been referred to me for decision in terms of subrule (6).

[2] On 24 April 2023, the applicant applied to this Court for leave to appeal against
a judgment of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria. The application, which
was op posed by the respondents, was dismissed with costs on 14 June 2023.
Thereupon, the respondents prepared the necessary Bills of Costs (the bills). On 28
February 2024, a Notice of Taxation was served on the applicant’s correspondent
attorneys in Bloemfontei n, informing them that the matter had been set do wn on 20
March 2024 before the Taxing Master ( taxing m aster) for taxation. There being no
appearance on behalf of the applicant, the bills were taxed by the taxing master on an
unopposed basis on 20 March 2024 and on that date the allocatur was completed. On
23 September 2024, the applicant set the review procedure envisaged in SCA rule 17
in motion.

[3] The taxing master initially declined to state a case for the decision of a judge
because the application had been filed well outside the 20 days contemplated in SCA
rule 17(3). The applicant was then compelled to bring an application for condonation.
The condonation sought, which was opposed by the respondents, succeeded on 28
May 2025. In the meanwhile, the taxing master resigned without having stated a case
for the decision of a judge. On 8 July 2025, the Chief Registrar (herself newly
appointed), having familiarised herself with the matter and solicited the views of other

3

chief r egistrars with whom she had consulted, exp ressed the following view in a
memorandum to the President of the Court:
‘[t]he general feeling when a taxing master resigns after having taxed a bill of costs, but before
delivering a stated case is that the bills have to be taxed de novo, because other Taxing
Masters will have difficulty in providing a stated case because they will not have the benefit of
submissions made on taxation. Further th e Taxing Master has the statutory conferred
discretion which another Taxing Master cannot interfere with.’
As interesting a debate as that may be, it need hardly detain us, because, as I perceive
it, rule 17 does not, in the circumstances of this case, avail the applicant.

[4] SCA rule 17(3) provides:
‘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 by the taxing master of own accord, may within 20 days
of the amount taxed and allowed require the taxing master to state a case for the decision of
the President, which case shall set out each item or part of an item together with the grounds
of objection advanced at the taxation, and shall embody any relevant findings of fact s by the
taxing master.’

[5] As SCA rule 17 makes clear, a ruling by the taxing master may only be brought
under review if: (a) the item was objected to or (b) the taxing master disallowed it. A
review of taxation under the rule is thus limited to those cases where there was an
objection and those where the taxing master disallows an item mero motu.1

[6] As to (b):
What (b) caters for is the case where the party presenting the bill is aggrieved; in other
words, a case at the instance of the party presenting the bill, aggrieved by the taxing
master’s disallowance mero motu of items included in the bill.2 In the circumstances,
there logically can hardly be an objection from the party presenting the bill, before the

there logically can hardly be an objection from the party presenting the bill, before the
allocatur is signed by the taxing master and the rule obviously does not contemplate
an objection in those circumstances. We are not here concerned with an item
disallowed mero motu by the taxing master. The relief sought pertains to matters that
were allowed. Accordingly, (b) finds no application. That leaves (a).

1 Mcunu v Southern Insurance Association Ltd 1977 (2) SA 18 (SE) at 19A.
2 Daywine Properties (Pty) Ltd v Murphy and Another 1991 (3) SA 216 (D) at 218C-D.

4

[7] As to (a):
SCA rule 17(3) quite clearly contemplates that only the matters objected to before the
taxing master may be the subject of revi ew. It does not cater for the case where a
party fails to attend a taxation that is otherwise formally in order. 3 Such a party may
apply for the setting aside of the taxation on the same basis on which judgments by
default are set aside.4To borrow from the headnote in Grűnder v Grűnder:
‘The Taxing Master's allocatur is a quasi -judicial administrative act: he must hear parties or
their legal representatives (and if need be also evidence) and exercise a judicial discretion.
Inasmuch as proceedings before the Taxing Master constitute an action in miniature, common
law principles applicable to the setting aside of default judgments apply also to the setting
aside of the Taxing Master's allocatur. An order as to costs cannot be enforced without the
Taxing Master's quantification thereof, and a quantification done in the absence of one of the
litigants ought to be open to challenge on the same basis as are default judgments.’5

[8] Not having attended the taxation, less still objected to any of the items in
question, the applicant cannot invoke the review procedure provided by SCA rule 17
in a belated attempt to attack items that the taxing master allowed. It follows that the
application must fail.

[9] In the result, the application is dismissed with costs.



________________
V M PONNAN
JUDGE OF APPEAL


3 Gran-Or (Edms) Bpk v Bevan 1969 (2) SA 87 (T).
4 D Harms Civil Procedure in the Superior Courts Service Issue 46 at B48.1.
5 Grűnder v Grűnder and others 1990 (4) SA 680 (C) headnote at 680J–681B. See also Barnard v
Taxing Master of the High Court of SA (TPD) and Others [2005] 2 All SA 485 (T).

5

Appearances

For the appellant: Macbeth Inc., Mbombela
Motaung Attorneys, Bloemfontein

For the respondents: Werksmans Inc., Johannesburg
Phatshoane Henney Inc., Bloemfontein

Back to Law Reports