IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
In the matter between
ZIRK BERNARDUS CHRIS JANSEN
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
Not reportable
Case no: 446/2021
PLAINTIFF
RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Jansen v Road Accident Fund (446/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 321
(16 October 2025)
Coram: MHLAMBI J
Heard: Taxation review
Delivered: 16 October 2025
Summary: Taxation - Review of Taxing Master's stated case in terms of
Uniform Rule 48(3) - failure to object during taxation - Taxing master's decision
not subject to review.
1
ORDER
The applicant's objections are rejected.
JUDGMENT
MHLAMBI J
[1] The taxation of the plaintiffs party and party bill of costs in the above case
number was finalised on 11 December 2023. Dissatisfied with certain rulings on items
38, 53, 68, 69, 71-74, 82, 74, 82, 74, 82, 83, and 85 in the applicant's attorney's Bills
of Costs made by the Registrar and the Taxing Master of this Court, the latter was
requested to prepare a stated case in accordance with rule 48(1) of the Uniform Rules
of Court.
[2] It was stated in the case that the taxation was scheduled for 21 November
2023, and was presented by Mr Wynand Jansen from Collins Attorneys, with no
opposition from the respondent. The procedure was postponed from that day at item 9
to 11 December 2023, to allow the applicant to provide the taxing master with file
notes, reports, and other documentation, as there was no proof for the fees and
disbursements. On 11 December 2023, the taxation resumed from item 10 onward,
and no objections were raised to items 38, 53, 68, 38, 53, 68, 69, 71 to 74, 82, 83, and
85. No objections were made at any point.
[3] Relying on Daywine Properties (Pty) Ltd v Murphy & Another, 1 the Taxing
Master stated that the party who failed to object should be barred from having the
taxing master's decision reviewed because it was not subject to review under
1 Daywine Properties (Pty) Ltd v Murphy & Another 1991 (3) SA 216 (D ).
2
Rule 48(1). All relevant facts and circumstances were considered before the decision
was made . The applicant did not respond to the master's stated case, and I do not find
fault with the Master's ruling, nor is there any reason for the court to interfere.
[4] The refore, I issue the follow ing order:
The applicant's objections are rejected.
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
3
Appearances
For the applicant:
For the taxing master:
No appearance
In person
Bloemfontein.
4