NT Makhubele Enterprises CC & Others v Business Partners Limited

The applicants unsuccessfully applied to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) for leave to appeal against four judgments of the Gauteng Division of the High Court on 20 September 2018. The application was refused with costs on 21 November 2018. On 24 January 2019, the applicants petitioned the President of the SCA for reconsideration under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, which was dismissed with costs on 28 October 2020. The respondent presented its bills of costs for taxation after giving proper notice to the applicants. The bills were taxed on 30 July 2025 and the taxing master's allocatur was issued the same day. The applicants did not attend or have representation at the taxation. On 6 August 2025, the applicants filed a request for the taxing master to state a case under rule 17(3) of the SCA rules, raising grounds including incorrect case numbers, improper service, defects in the certificate accompanying the bills, and alleged violations of constitutional rights. The taxing master declined to state a case, relying on Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated, because the applicants had not attended the taxation and failed to object before the taxing master. On 29 August 2025, the applicants requested the taxing master to place the matter for review before the President or another judge, based on legality principles.

• Whether a party who fails to attend a taxation can invoke the review procedure under rule 17(3) of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Supreme Court of Appeal
• Whether SCA rule 17(3) provides for judicial review of taxation based on the principle of legality
• Whether a taxing master's decision to decline a request to state a case for review is itself reviewable under rule 17(3)

The application was dismissed with costs.

A party who fails to attend a taxation cannot invoke the review procedure provided for by SCA rule 17(3). The rule only permits review where: (a) an item was objected to during the taxation; or (b) the taxing master disallowed an item mero motu (of their own accord). SCA rule 17(3) does not provide for judicial review of taxation based on the principle of legality or for review of a taxing master's decision to decline a request to state a case. A party who did not attend taxation may apply for the setting aside of the taxation on the same basis on which judgments by default are set aside.

The court noted that the party presenting bills for taxation (as opposed to the party objecting) may be aggrieved by the taxing master's disallowance of items mero motu and would be entitled to seek review under subsection (b) of rule 17(3). The court also observed that the applicants in this case did not challenge the exercise of the taxing master's discretion in respect of individual items in the bills but rather sought a comprehensive review of the taxation and the taxing master's refusal to state a case based on the principle of legality, which falls outside the scope of rule 17(3).

This judgment clarifies the limited scope of review available under rule 17(3) of the SCA Rules regarding taxation of costs. It confirms that the review procedure under this rule is not available to parties who fail to attend taxation proceedings. It reinforces that such parties must instead follow the procedure for setting aside taxation on the same basis as judgments by default. The case further establishes that rule 17(3) does not provide a basis for comprehensive review of taxation based on the principle of legality, and that a taxing master's refusal to state a case is not itself reviewable under the rule. This judgment provides important guidance on procedural requirements for challenging taxation of costs in the Supreme Court of Appeal.