Nutun Business Services South Africa (Pty) Limited (formerly Transaction Capital Recoveries (Pty) Limited) v Taxing Master, High Court of South Africa Gauteng Local Division, Mr J Mahlaule and Another

The applicant had been ordered to pay costs in two separate proceedings against the second respondent (Emfuleni Local Municipality): first on 18 February 2020 when its urgent application was struck from the roll, and second on 7 August 2020 when the application in opposed proceedings was dismissed. The second respondent's cost consultant, Mr. Sibiya, allegedly served notices of taxation via email to Ms. Bester (the applicant's attorney) at her personal email address ([email protected]). Two bills of costs were taxed in the applicant's absence on 7 June 2024 (R 447,213.63) and 26 June 2024 (R 288,973.91), totaling R 736,189.54. The applicant only became aware of the taxations on 25 June 2024 when the second respondent's attorneys sent an email attaching the taxed bills. Ms. Bester denied ever receiving the notices of taxation at her personal email address. The applicant brought an application to set aside both taxation awards, arguing they were conducted without proper notice and in its absence.

• Whether there was proper service of the two bills of taxation on the applicant's attorneys
• Whether the second respondent complied with notice requirements prescribed in Uniform Rule 70(3B)(a)(i)
• Whether the Taxing Master satisfied himself that there had been proper service as required by Rule 70(4)(a) and (b)
• Whether service by email at a personal email address complied with Rule 4A(1)(c)
• Whether the applicant showed good cause for setting aside the allocaturs
• Whether the applicant made out a proper case under Rule 41(2)(a) or Rule 31(2)(b)

1. The taxation awards made by the first respondent under case number 02014/2020 dated 7 June 2024 and 26 June 2024 in respect of the second respondent's costs and disbursements in the urgent application and the opposed application are set aside. 2. The second respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application, including the costs of senior counsel, on scale B.

1. Service of a notice of taxation by email is only valid under Rule 4A(1)(c) where there is explicit agreement (express or implied) for service at that specific email address, and confirmation of receipt has been obtained. 2. A personal email address appearing on letterheads or used for general correspondence does not, without more, constitute an address "provided" for service as contemplated by Rule 4A(1)(c). 3. A Taxing Master has a mandatory, proactive duty under Rule 70(4)(a) to satisfy himself that the party liable to pay costs has received due notice before proceeding with taxation; failure to discharge this duty renders the subsequent taxation proceedings irregular and liable to be set aside. 4. Uploading notices to digital litigation platforms such as CaseLines does not constitute proper service of notices of taxation under the Uniform Rules. 5. The common law principles applicable to setting aside default judgments apply equally to setting aside Taxing Master allocaturs granted in absentia: the applicant must show good cause (reasonable explanation for absence), good faith, and a bona fide defence with prima facie prospects of success. 6. Ignorance arising from a party's failure to comply with the Rules of service is a valid explanation for absence from taxation proceedings.

The court observed that a taxation of costs is not a mere administrative act but a judicial function that determines financial liability, and the right to be heard before such an order is made is a cornerstone of the justice system. The court also noted that the second respondent's allegation that the application was vexatious and an abuse of process was without foundation, as the applicant was merely insisting on its fundamental right to be heard before a substantial monetary order was made against it. The court commented that the applicant's queries regarding the propriety of certain cost items in the taxed bills were not devoid of merit and established a prima facie case for wishing to scrutinize and oppose the taxations. The court noted that the first respondent's failure to file any affidavit explaining his conduct carried no weight, and any satisfaction based on invalid service would have been misplaced.

This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for service of notices of taxation under the Uniform Rules of Court, particularly Rule 70(3B) and Rule 4A(1)(c). It clarifies that service by email requires explicit consent and that a personal email address on a letterhead does not constitute an address "provided" for service purposes without positive agreement. The judgment emphasizes the mandatory duty of a Taxing Master under Rule 70(4)(a) to satisfy himself of proper service before proceeding with taxation. It establishes that uploading documents to litigation platforms like CaseLines does not constitute proper service of notices of taxation. The case also confirms that the principles for setting aside default judgments apply equally to setting aside Taxing Master allocaturs granted in absentia. The judgment protects the fundamental right to be heard before a financial order is made, treating taxation as a judicial function rather than a mere administrative act.