Dunhuramambo (Pvt) Ltd t/a Zambezi Cruise & Safaris v T P Mashayamombe N.O and Charles Nikobasa

The Applicant sought review of the taxation of costs in case numbers HCC4/22 and HCC8/22, which were heard at Chinhoyi High Court. The application sought to review the taxed bill of costs to reflect 12 hours for each bill totaling US$7,440.00 plus VAT. The application was opposed by the 2nd Respondent who raised numerous points in limine, including: non-service on the 1st Respondent, improper commissioning of affidavits, filing of second answering affidavit without leave, and most critically, the failure of the 1st Respondent (Taxing Officer) to produce a report. The application had previously been struck from the roll in judgment HH278/25 but was reinstated through a condonation application in judgment HH606/25. The 1st Respondent, acting as Taxing Officer, did not appear and failed to file the mandatory report required under Rule 72(27).

• Whether the application for review of taxation should be dismissed for failure of the 1st Respondent (Taxing Officer) to produce a report
• Whether the absence of the Taxing Officer's report is fatal to the review application
• Whether it is the Applicant's or the Taxing Officer's duty to ensure the report is filed
• Whether the matter can proceed to determination of other points in limine and merits in the absence of the Taxing Officer's report

1. The application be and is hereby removed from the roll pending the production of the report by the 1st Respondent. 2. The 1st Respondent be and is hereby directed to produce a report for taxation of costs in case numbers HCC4/22 and HCC8/22 within ten days from the date of being served with this judgment. 3. The Applicant shall serve the 1st Respondent with a copy of this judgment within five days from the date of this judgment. 4. Costs shall be in the cause.

Rule 72(27) imposes a peremptory (mandatory) obligation on a Taxing Officer to file a report within ten days of receiving an application for review of taxation. This duty rests squarely with the Taxing Officer and not the applicant. The failure of the Taxing Officer to comply with this duty does not render the review application fatally defective or warrant dismissal. However, the Taxing Officer's report is an indispensable component of a review of taxation as it provides the court with the reasoning and considerations which informed the decision under challenge, thereby enabling the court to properly exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Without such a report, the court cannot proceed to determine the substantive review or even preliminary issues, as it would be deprived of the foundation necessary to assess the challenged decision.

The court noted that proceeding to determine the matter in the absence of the 1st Respondent's report may promote admission of hearsay evidence by the parties, as none of the parties is aware of the basis upon which the 1st Respondent reached her conclusion. The court also observed that the point in limine regarding the absence of the report was only raised during oral submissions, and it would be unfair to punish the Applicant with an order of costs for an issue that only emerged during the hearing. The court indicated that the rest of the points in limine (including service issues, improper commissioning of affidavits, filing without leave, and expungement of documents) and the merits could only be determined after the report has been filed.

This case reinforces the mandatory nature of the Taxing Officer's duty to file a report in review proceedings relating to taxation of costs under Rule 72(27). It confirms the principle established in Medworth Properties that the failure to file such a report does not destroy the review application but necessitates postponement until the report is produced. The judgment emphasizes that the burden lies with the Taxing Officer as part of the court's administrative machinery, not with the applicant, to ensure compliance with this procedural requirement. The case is significant for clarifying that procedural defects attributable to court officers should not result in prejudice to litigants seeking to exercise their review rights.