THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case no: 496/2023
In the matter between:
THE ROCK FOUNDATION PROPERTIES CC FIRST APPLICANT
ESTHER NYARWAI NDEGWA SECOND APPLICANT
and
DOSVELT PROPERTIES (PTY) LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT
ELI NATHAN CHAITOWITZ SECOND RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: The Rock Foundation Properties CC v Dosvelt Properties (Pty)
Limited (496/2023) [2026] ZASCA 43 (1 April 2026)
Coram: SMITH JA
Heard: 19 March 2026
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 1 April 2026 at 11h00.
Summary: Taxation of Costs – review of taxation – party who fails to attend taxation
cannot invoke review procedure under rule 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] Although this application has been described as a review of taxation, its true
purpose is to seek a review of the Taxing Master’s refusal to state a case for the President
of this Court, in accordance with Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) rule 17(3). The taxation
process was initiated following the dismissal of the applicants’ application for
reconsideration of the refusal of leave to appeal under section 17(2) (f) of the Superior
Courts Act 10 of 2013.
[2] On 9 June 2023, this Court ordered that the applicants’ application for
reconsideration be struck from the roll. Additionally, the Court ordered the applicants to
pay the costs incurred by the respondents in opposing the application, jointly and
severally, with one paying the other to be absolved.
[3] The respondents prepared their Bills of Costs (the bills) and served them on the
applicants, subsequently presenting them to the Taxing Master for taxation. The taxation
was initially scheduled for 13 August 2025. On this date, the second applicant appear ed
both personally and as the sole member of the second applicant, requesting
postponement to allow time to retain new legal representatives, as the mandate of their
previous attorneys, Pandor Davids Incorporated (Pandor Davids Inc), had been
terminated. The Taxing Master granted the postponement, rescheduling the taxation for
20 August 2025. However, neither the second applicant nor any legal representatives
attended the rescheduled hearing, resulting in the taxation proceeding in their absence.
[4] On 17 September 2025, the applicants submitted a request to the Taxing Master
to state a case for determination by the President of this Court, pursuant to SCA
rule 17(3). This request related to the taxation conducted on 20 August 2025. In their
notice, the applicants alleged that between 13 August and 19 August 2025, they faced
difficulties securing new legal representation. Their former attorneys, Pandor Davids Inc,
had not formally withdrawn, which hindered their ability to instruct a new firm in ti me for
the taxation proceedings.
[5] The applicants and the Taxing Master provided conflicting accounts of the events
on 20 August 2025. The second applicant stated she arrived at the Taxing Master's office
at approximately 9:15 but was effectively ignored until 10:35, at which point the Tax ing
Master informed her that the taxation had already been finalised in her absence. The
second applicant further stated that the Taxing Master indicated that the applicants’ former
attorneys had advised that she would not attend the taxation and that i t should proceed
unopposed. The Taxing Master did not specify whether this instruction came from Pandor
Davids Inc or her Bloemfontein attorneys, Kgomo Attorneys Incorporated (Kgomo
Attorneys).
[6] The applicants had terminated the mandate of Pandor Davids Inc on 23 April 2025,
prior to the awarding of costs and scheduling of the taxation. They subsequently also
terminated Kgomo Attorneys’ mandate on 7 May 2025. Kgomo Attorneys eventually filed
their notice of withdrawal as attorneys of record on 19 May 2025. The applicants argued
that neither firm consequently had the authority to represent them or communicate with
the Taxing Master regarding the taxation process. After receiving the taxed bills, the
second applicant notified the Taxing Master of their intention to object to various items
allowed during taxation.
[7] The Taxing Master disputed the applicants’ account. They asserted that the Taxing
[7] The Taxing Master disputed the applicants’ account. They asserted that the Taxing
Master took significant steps to assist the second applicant. When the bills were
presented for taxation on 13 August 2025, the Taxing Master requested the respondents’
legal representative to consent to a postponement, which was granted without pursuing
wasted costs. The Taxing Master also provided the second applicant with contact details
for costs consultants and thoroughly explained relevant procedures, shared her own
contact information, and informed the second applicant that taxation could be conducted
virtually to reduce expenses.
[8] On 20 August 2025, prior to commencing taxation, the Taxing Master took steps to
ascertain whether the second applicant would be attending the taxation. Since the
applicants were unrepresented and the second applicant resided outside Bloemfontein,
she deemed it necessary to verify the second applicant’s presence at the premises. It
was established that she was not present. The Taxing Master thus refuted any implication
of bad faith or improper conduct in her management of the proceedings. Nonetheless,
these factual disagreements are not material to the review under SCA rule 17(3).
[9] Drawing from the judgments in Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated v South African
Forestry Company Soc Limited and Others (Macbeth Attorneys)1 and NT Makhabele
Enterprises CC and Others v Business Partners Limited (Makhabele),2 the Taxing Master
informed the applicants that she was of the view that a party who is not present during
taxation and who fails to raise objections before the Taxing Master, is not entitled to seek
a review under rule SCA rule 17(3). The Taxing Master accordingly refused to state a case
under this rule.
[10] SCA rule 17(3) stipulates:
‘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
1 Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated v South African Forestry Company Soc Limited and Others (365/2023)
[2025] ZASCA 118 (15 August 2025) (Macbeth Attorneys).
[2025] ZASCA 118 (15 August 2025) (Macbeth Attorneys).
2 NT Makhabele Enterprises CC and Others v Business Partners Limited (83/2019) [2025] ZASCA 151 (16
October 2025) (Makhabele).
objection advanced at the taxation, and shall embody any relevant findings of facts by the taxing
master.’
[11] In both Macbeth Attorneys and Makhabele, this Court clarified that SCA rule 17(3)
limits reviewability to items specifically objected to during taxation or disallowed by the
Taxing Master mero motu (on their own initiative). The review procedure is strictly
confined to these circumstances.
[12] Therefore, a party who does not attend the taxation hearing cannot utilise the
review procedure under SCA rule 17(3) to challenge the Taxing Master’s refusal to state
a case. While the applicants’ assertions of procedural unfairness in the way in which th e
taxation was conducted may implicate their right to a fair hearing, they do not justify
invoking SCA rule 17(3). Shortcomings in the procedure adopted by the Taxing Master
may well in certain circumstances constitute grounds for setting aside the tax ation. In
instances where a party believes that the Taxing Master’s conduct during the taxation
process was improper or prejudicial, such concerns may warrant the overturning of the
taxation, provided they meet the established common law requirements for t he setting
aside of default judgments. However, SCA rule 17(3) is not the appropriate remedy in
these circumstances.3
[13] In sum, as the applicants did not attend the taxation, they cannot request review
of any item that was objected to. The Taxing Master therefore correctly declined the
request to state a case under SCA rule 17(3). The application must therefore fail.
[14] In the result, the following order is made:
The application is dismissed with costs.
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).
J E SMITH
JUDGE OF APPEAL
Appearances:
Attorneys for the applicants: Symington de Kok Attorneys
169B Nelson Mandela Drive
Westdene, Bloemfontein 9300
Attorneys for the respondents: McIntyre van der Post Inc
12 Barnes Street
Westdene, Bloemfontein 9300.