2021 SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT INDEX NICOLE JANUARIE – SENIOR LEGAL OFFICER, HIGH AND SUPREME COURT Table of Contents Administrative Law....................................................................................................................................3 Constitutional law......................................................................................................................................5 Civil Law.....................................................................................................................................................7 Civil Procedure........................................................................................................................................21 Commercial law.......................................................................................................................................28 Criminal Law............................................................................................................................................34 Family Law...............................................................................................................................................40 Labour Law..............................................................................................................................................42 Law of Delict............................................................................................................................................49 Law of insolvency...................................................................................................................................54 2 Administrative Law Review – taxation – This is a review of a taxation under the provisions of rule 25(3) of the rules of this court. The matter involved an application in this court to challenge the result of a presidential election. After the matter was heard and judgment delivered, the matter was enrolled to be taxed by the Taxing Master. At the taxation, the applicants objected to each and every item in the bill of costs. It was contended on behalf of the applicants that the Supreme Court Rules do not provide a scale or tariff applicable to the unique s 172 applications and that due to the extraordinary nature of such applications coupled with the fact that a successful litigant should in principle be entitled to recover costs reasonably incurred, the High Court’s taxation tariffs should have been applied by the Taxing Master. The Taxing Master’s response was that the rules of this court provides for presidential election challenges to be taxed in accordance with the tariffs applicable in the Supreme Court. According to him this means it is not appropriate to use the High Court scale. The Taxing Master further maintains that he applied his mind to the nature of the matter and hence did differentiate between instructed and instructing legal practitioners where the tariff did not provide for such distinction and thus did take into account the exceptional and complex nature of the process as well as the fact that it was dealt with on an urgent basis. According to the Taxing Master, the applicants in this matter cannot complain about the Supreme Court tariffs as they chose to institute proceedings in this court knowing that its tariffs were lower than that of the High Court. The question on review is whether the nature of the proceedings should have moved the Taxing Master to move away from the tariffs provided for in the Supreme Court Rules and hence apply the High Court tariffs across the board. Held that a court will not easily disturb a finding of the Taxing Master and will also not do so in a borderline case. Held that review of the Taxing Master is not only available in terms of the common law grounds of review but will be afforded where the court is satisfied that a view the Taxing Master took was clearly wrong. Held that the Taxing Master misdirected himself when he reasoned that the Supreme Court as a forum was chosen by the applicants and as such they should accept the tariff of fees applicable within this forum. Held that the applicants were not correct to regard the whole process as exceptional or extraordinary and complex. All electoral challenges to any presidential election must be brought on this basis and therefore the process is on par with all applications insofar as the exchange of affidavits, discovery of documents and urgent applications are concerned. Held tha

docxDoc 2021 Supreme Court judgment Index

Practical Docs > Common > Other > Preview
59 Pages 0 Downloads 12 Views 3.0 Score
Tips: Current document can only be previewed at most page5,If the total number of pages in the document exceeds page 5,please download the document。
Uploaded by admin on 2022-06-23 11:23:37
Rate
You can enter 255 characters
What is my domain?( answer:www.45doc.com )
comments
  • No comments yet