Tadvest Industrial (Pty) Ltd and Another v A Hanekom & Others

Following litigation concerning the occupation of land, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had previously dismissed Tadvest Industrial (Pty) Ltd’s application for leave to appeal and a subsequent reconsideration application, granting costs in favour of the first to third respondents. The respondents’ attorneys presented two bills of costs for taxation. Tadvest objected, contending that a subsequent settlement agreement between the parties provided for a waiver of the respondents’ rights to claim costs, and further argued that the respondents’ legal representation had been state-funded, meaning no recoverable costs were incurred. The taxing master rejected these objections, holding that they were beyond his jurisdiction, and proceeded to tax the bills. Tadvest then sought a review of taxation under Rule 17 of the SCA Rules.

The review of taxation was dismissed with costs.

The decision reaffirms the limited jurisdiction and function of taxing masters in South African law, clarifying that taxation proceedings cannot be used to attack or circumvent existing court orders for costs. It underscores the procedural separation between challenges to costs orders and the taxation of bills, promoting certainty and finality in costs enforcement.