The Rock Foundation Properties CC v Dosvelt Properties (Pty) Limited

The applicants had their application for reconsideration struck from the roll on 9 June 2023, and were ordered to pay the respondents' costs jointly and severally. The respondents prepared their Bills of Costs and presented them to the Taxing Master for taxation. The taxation was initially scheduled for 13 August 2025, when the second applicant appeared and requested a postponement to retain new legal representatives, as their previous attorneys' mandate had been terminated. The Taxing Master granted the postponement to 20 August 2025. Neither the second applicant nor any legal representatives attended the rescheduled hearing, and the taxation proceeded in their absence. The applicants had terminated the mandates of Pandor Davids Inc on 23 April 2025 and Kgomo Attorneys on 7 May 2025. There were conflicting accounts about what occurred on 20 August 2025, with the second applicant claiming she arrived at 9:15 but was ignored until 10:35, while the Taxing Master stated she took steps to ascertain whether the second applicant would attend and established she was not present. On 17 September 2025, the applicants requested the Taxing Master to state a case for determination by the President under SCA rule 17(3), but the Taxing Master refused.

• Whether a party who fails to attend taxation and does not raise objections before the Taxing Master is entitled to seek a review under SCA rule 17(3)
• Whether the Taxing Master correctly refused to state a case under SCA rule 17(3) when the applicants did not attend the taxation hearing
• The proper interpretation and application of SCA rule 17(3) regarding reviewability of taxation decisions

The application was dismissed with costs.

A party who does not attend a taxation hearing and fails to raise objections before the Taxing Master is not entitled to seek a review under SCA rule 17(3) of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Supreme Court of Appeal. The review procedure under rule 17(3) is strictly confined to items that were specifically objected to during taxation or disallowed by the Taxing Master mero motu (on their own initiative). A party cannot invoke rule 17(3) to challenge a Taxing Master's refusal to state a case when that party did not attend the taxation hearing.

The Court observed that while the applicants' assertions of procedural unfairness in the conduct of the taxation may implicate their right to a fair hearing, such concerns do not justify invoking SCA rule 17(3). The Court noted that shortcomings in the procedure adopted by the Taxing Master may, in certain circumstances, constitute grounds for setting aside the taxation, provided they meet the established common law requirements for setting aside default judgments. However, SCA rule 17(3) is not the appropriate remedy in such circumstances. The Court also noted the conflicting factual accounts between the parties regarding what occurred on 20 August 2025 but found these factual disagreements were not material to the review under SCA rule 17(3).

This case is significant in South African civil procedure as it clarifies the strict limitations on the availability of the review procedure under SCA rule 17(3) in relation to taxation of costs. It confirms that this review mechanism is only available to parties who actually attended the taxation and raised objections to specific items, or where the Taxing Master disallowed items mero motu. The judgment reinforces that a party who fails to attend taxation cannot circumvent these requirements by later invoking rule 17(3). The case also distinguishes between procedural review under SCA rule 17(3) and other potential remedies for procedural irregularities in taxation proceedings, such as applications to set aside taxation analogous to setting aside default judgments. This provides important guidance for practitioners on the proper remedies available when challenging taxation proceedings and the consequences of non-attendance at taxation.