~_ 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
SSM COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
j DELETE WHICHEVER 1S NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: ¥&S/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: ¥ES/NO
(3) REVISED
DATE: 18 AUGUST 2025 .
Case No. 64337/2021
In the matter between:
DR. MOTHOBI KEELE APPLICANT
And
MAGISTRATE JANINE JANSE VAN RENSBURG FIRST RESPONDENT
DR. BALI ZAMATHIYANE KEELE SECOND RESPONDENT
Coram: Millar J
2
Heard on: Review in Chambers
Delivered: 18 August 2025 - This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties’ representatives by email, by being uploaded
to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The
date and time for hand-down is deemed to be O9HOO on 18 August
2025.
JUDGMENT
MILLAR J
[1] This is an application brought in terms of rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of court for
the review of taxation. The rule provides that:
“(1) 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 15 days after the allocatur by notice require the
taxing master to state a case for the decision of a judge.”
[2] After filing a notice of review, the taxing master filed a stated case as provided
for in rule 48(3). After receiving the stated case, both the applicant and the
second respondent both filed submissions in terms of rule 48(5)(c). The
application for review was then placed before me.
[3] The review turns on a single issue as appears below and for that reason, |
decided in terms of rule 48(6)(a)(i) that it is appropriate that this review be decided
on the papers submitted.
3
[4] In the present matter, the bill of costs in question was taxed in the sum of
R131 131.30 on 9 December 2024. The applicant's application for review was
delivered on 18 January 2025.
[5] Although the notice was delivered outside of the 15-day period referred to in rule
48(1), no application for condonation was made. Even though no such
application was made, given the relatively short period of time that the application
was out of time and that it was over the December period, | accept, for purposes
of this review that the application is properly before me. | am moved to this view
in no small part by the fact that the applicant is a lay person who is representing
himself."
[6] The events leading up to the taxation are the following:
[5.1] On 9 November 2022, the second respondent obtained an order for
costs against the applicant. A bill of costs was prepared.
[5.2] The bill of costs was served on the applicant by email on 4 December
2022 and subsequently set down for taxation on 26 November 2024,
some two years later, on the unopposed taxation roll. No formal notice
to oppose the taxation of the bill of costs or any item in that bill of costs
was served on the second respondent.
ee
' See Greenblatt v Barends 1960 (4) SA 825 (C) where the delay was for a period of 6 months which was
found in the circumstances to be unreasonable. The delay in the present period over December is only a
few days and thus the Present matter is distinguishable. In any event, the point was not taken by either
the Taxing Master or the Second Respondent,