Tadvest Industrial (Pty) Ltd (formerly known as Old Abland (Pty) Ltd) v Hanekom and Others

The matter arose from two bills of costs presented for taxation by the attorneys for the first to third respondents, pursuant to costs orders granted by the Supreme Court of Appeal after dismissing Tadvest Industrial (Pty) Ltd’s application for leave to appeal and a subsequent reconsideration application under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. Tadvest objected to the taxation, contending that the respondents had waived their right to claim costs in terms of a subsequent settlement agreement relating to land occupation disputes, and further argued that the respondents’ legal representation was State-funded and therefore not entitled to recover costs. Tadvest required the taxing master to consider the validity and effect of the alleged waiver and other extraneous issues. The taxing master rejected these objections, holding that they fell outside his jurisdiction, and proceeded to finalise the taxation. Tadvest then brought a Rule 17 review of taxation before the SCA.

The review of taxation was dismissed with costs.

The decision clarifies and reinforces the limited jurisdiction and function of taxing masters in South African law. It confirms that taxation proceedings and reviews thereof cannot be used to challenge or undermine court-ordered costs, and that disputes concerning waiver, settlement agreements, or entitlement to costs must be determined by a court through appropriate procedural mechanisms.