THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case no: 83/2019
In the matter between:
NT MAKHUBELE ENTERPRISES CC 1ST APPLICANT
NATHANIEL TSAKANE MAKHUBELE 2ND APPLICANT
HITEKANI FAST FOODS CC 3RD APPLICANT
YOLTSA TRADING CC 4TH APPLICANT
and
BUSINESS PARTNERS LIMITED RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: NT Makhubele Enterprises CC & Others v Business Partners Limited
(83/2019) [2025] ZASCA 151 (16 October 2025)
Coram: SMITH JA
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’
representatives by email, published on the Supreme Court of Appeal website, released
to SAFLII. The date and time for hand -down is deemed to be 16 on October 2025 at
11h00.
Summary: Costs – review of taxation – party who fails to attend taxation cannot invoke
review procedure under 17(3) of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of
the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa.
ORDER
The application is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Smith JA
[1] This is an application for the review of the taxing master’s refusal to state a case
for review of taxation in terms of rule 17(3) of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of the
Proceedings of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (the SCA rules). The fa cts
which gave rise to the application are briefly as follows.
[2] On 20 September 2018, the applicants applied to this Court for leave to appeal
against four judgments of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (high court)
leave to appeal having been refused by that court. That application was refused with costs
on 21 November 2018.
[3] On 24 January 2019, the applicants petitioned the President of this Court for
reconsideration of the decision refusing leave to appeal in terms of s 17(2)( f) of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. That application was also dismissed with costs on
28 October 2020.
[4] The respondent thereafter presented its bills of costs (the bills) for taxation, having
given proper notice thereof to the applicants in terms of the SCA rules. The bills were
taxed on 30 July 2025, and the taxing master’s allocatur was issued on the same day.
The applicants were not present, nor represented at the taxation.
[5] On 6 August 2025, the applicants filed a request for the taxing master to state a
case in terms of rule 17(3) of the SCA rules. The applicants relied on various grounds,
including that the court orders bore incorrect case numbers; that one of the orders was
not properly served on them; alleged defects in the certificate which accompanied the
bills; and that reliance was placed on a document which was in a language that the
applicants could not understand thereby violating their constitutional rights to dignity,
language and culture and, access to the courts. The taxing master, relying on the
judgment of this Court in Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated v South African Forestry
Company Soc Limited and Others, 1 declined to state a case ‘because a party not in
attendance and fails to object before the taxing master cannot thereafter invoke review of
the taxation procedure in terms of SCA rule 17.’
[6] As a result of the taxing master’s refusal to state a case, on 29 August 2025, the
applicants requested the taxing master to place the matter for review before the President
or another judge of this Court. That request was based on the principle of legality and the
assertion that the taxing master’s decision ‘lacked rationality, reasonableness, procedural
fairness and lawfulness.’
[7] SCA rule 17(3) provides as follows:
‘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 c ase 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 facts by the taxing
master.’
[8] In Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated, Ponnan JA explained that in terms of SCA rule
17(3), ‘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 under the rule is therefore
limited to those cases whe re there was an objection and those where the taxing master
limited to those cases whe re there was an objection and those where the taxing master
disallows an item mero motu.’2 He further stated that (b) provides for a case where the
1 Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated v South African Forestry Company SOC Limited and Others (365/2023)
[2025] ZASCA 118 (15 August 2025); 2025 JDR 3566 (SCA).
2 Ibid para 5.
party presenting the bill for taxation is aggrieved by the taxing master’s disallowance of
items mero motu. A party who failed to attend a taxation cannot therefore invoke the
review procedure provided for by SCA rule 17 but ‘may apply for the setting aside of the
taxation on the same basis on which judgments by default are set aside.’3
[9] As mentioned, the applicants did not attend the taxation and can consequently not
request review of ‘any item which was objected to.’ Not being the party who presented
the bills for taxation, the applicants are also precluded from requesting the review of items
disallowed mero motu by the taxing master. In any event, the applicants do not challenge
the exercise of the taxing master’s discretion in respect of individual items in the bills but
seek a comprehensive review of the taxation and the taxing mas ter’s refusal to state a
case, based on the principle of legality.
[10] For the foregoing reasons, SCA rule 17(3) does not provide for judicial review of
taxation based on the principle of legality or of a taxing master’s decision to decline a
request to state a case. It follows that the taxing master acted correctly in decli ning the
request to state a case for taxation. The application accordingly falls to be dismissed with
costs.
[11] In the result, the application is dismissed with costs.
________________
J E SMITH
JUDGE OF APPEAL
3 Ibid para 7; Gründer v Gründer 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).
Appearances
For the applicants: NT Makhubele, Johannesburg
Matsepes Inc, Bloemfontein
For the respondent: Strydom Britz Mohulatsi Inc, Pretoria
Symington de Kok Attorneys, Bloemfontein.