Penwill v Penwill N.O. and Others

The applicant, Andrew Donald Jonathan Penwill, acting in person, sought a review of the taxation of costs ordered against him after the Constitutional Court dismissed his application for leave to appeal for lack of reasonable prospects of success in protracted litigation against his brother and other trustees of a family trust. The dispute arose from inheritance-related litigation concerning the validity of their mother’s will. After costs were taxed by the Constitutional Court’s Taxing Master, the applicant objected to several items in the bill of costs and sought to set aside a warrant of execution and notice of attachment issued against his movable property. The Taxing Master stated a case under rule 17(3) of the Supreme Court of Appeal Rules (made applicable to the Constitutional Court), and the Constitutional Court reviewed the taxation, focusing particularly on whether the correct tariffs had been applied.

The amount allowed for item 23 of the bill of costs was reduced from R1 504.00 to R384.00. The warrant of execution issued against the applicant’s movable property and the consequent notice of attachment were set aside. No order as to costs was made.

The case clarifies the proper interpretation and application of tariffs under rule 18 of the Supreme Court of Appeal Rules, particularly the distinction between Part C 3(a) and Part C 3(c). It reinforces the principle that while courts afford Taxing Masters a wide discretion, they will intervene where there is a clear misapplication of the law. The judgment is also significant for confirming the Constitutional Court’s authority, under section 173 of the Constitution, to regulate its own process and determine reviews of taxation as a full court.