Farai Bwatikona Zizhou v The Taxing Officer and Rita Marque Mbatha

The applicant sought a review of the taxation of a bill of costs in terms of Rule 56 of the Supreme Court Rules 2018. The bill of costs arose from Case No. SC 211/19 where the second respondent was a litigant in person. On 8 July 2019, the parties appeared before the first respondent (the Taxing Officer) and presented a draft bill for endorsement, which the first respondent signed. The bill was denominated in United States dollars. The second respondent subsequently took out a writ of execution to recover the taxed costs. At the time of taxation, S.I. 33/2019 (published 22 February 2019) had introduced the RTGS dollar as legal tender, and S.I. 142/2019 (published 24 June 2019) had made local currency the sole legal tender in Zimbabwe. The second respondent had received legal services from an entity called T.S. Labour Specialists, which was not a registered firm of legal practitioners.

• Whether the Taxing Officer erred in endorsing a bill of costs denominated in United States dollars in light of S.I. 33/2019 and S.I. 142/2019
• Whether the Taxing Officer properly exercised his discretion in taxing the bill
• Whether parties could by consent agree to a bill denominated in foreign currency contrary to statutory provisions
• Whether costs could properly be allowed for legal services rendered by an unregistered legal practitioner
• Whether travelling expenses from Bulawayo to Harare should have been allowed when the second respondent was resident in Harare

1. The bill of taxed costs in SC 211/19 is hereby set aside. 2. The second respondent shall bear the applicant's costs of review.

A bill of costs denominated in United States dollars, when taxed after S.I. 142/2019 came into force on 24 June 2019, is in contravention of the law which made local currency the sole legal tender in all domestic transactions in Zimbabwe. Anything done in direct conflict with a statute is a nullity. Parties cannot by their consent confer legality upon a bill of costs that contravenes the clear letter of the law. A Taxing Officer who endorses and affixes his signature to a draft bill effectively passes the bill under his hand and adopts it as his own taxation, and cannot distance himself from its contents.

The court observed that the bill was also improper to the extent that it purported to compensate the second respondent for outlays made to T.S. Labour Specialists for legal services rendered, as this entity was not a registered firm of legal practitioners and was therefore not entitled to charge fees for legal services. The court noted it could not remit the matter for fresh taxation because the bill was erroneously drawn up and denominated in United States dollars, but stated that if so inclined and advised, the second respondent may draw up a fresh bill and submit it for taxation. The court did not address the ground relating to travelling expenses from Bulawayo to Harare as the first ground was dispositive of the review.

This case is significant for establishing the application of Zimbabwe's currency regulations to bills of costs and legal proceedings. It clarified the temporal application of the currency reform statutory instruments (S.I. 33/2019, S.I. 142/2019, and S.I. 213/2019) and confirmed that S.I. 142/2019, not S.I. 213/2019, was the instrument that made local currency the sole legal tender. The judgment reinforces the principle that parties cannot by consent validate acts that contravene statutory provisions. It also addresses the impropriety of recovering costs for legal services rendered by unregistered practitioners. The case provides important guidance on the review of taxation proceedings and the standards applied by courts when reviewing taxing officers' decisions.