South Mead (Pty) Ltd t/a Meister Cold Store v Acrow Limited (GP) (unreported case no A357/2023, 12-11-2024) (Lesufi AJ, Millar and Hassim JJ)

A recent judgment from the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria, in South Mead, clarifies the principles governing the appealability of a rescission (setting aside) of a taxation. The court, per Lesufi AJ (Millar and Hassim JJ concurring), dismissed the appeal on the basis that the decision to set aside a taxation was not final and, therefore, not appealable.

Factual background 

The case arose from interlocutory proceedings where the respondent, Acrow Limited, had successfully opposed an exception raised by South Mead and was awarded costs. The respondent’s attorneys subsequently served a notice of intention to tax a bill of costs, which the appellant opposed. However, the notice setting down the taxation was allegedly not received by the respondent’s attorneys, leading to the bill of costs being taxed in their absence.

The respondent then sought to rescind or review the taxation, arguing that it was an irregular step under r 30(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The court a quo found that the taxation had not been properly set down, constituting an irregularity, and set it aside.

The central issue before the full bench of the High Court was whether the court a quo’s rescission of a taxation was appealable. The appellant contended that the decision to set aside the taxation should be overturned.

However, the court reaffirmed the test for appealability established in Zweni v Minister of Law and Order 1993 (1) SA 523 (A), which held that an appealable ‘judgment or order’ must –

• be final in effect and not susceptible to alteration by the court of first instance;
• be definitive of the rights of the parties; and
• dispose of at least a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings.

Applying these principles, the court noted that a decision setting aside a taxation does not affect the parties’ substantive rights in the main action. Instead, it simply allows the appellant to reinitiate the taxation process with proper notice. Consequently, the decision lacked finality and was not appealable under s 16(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.

On appeal, the High Court found the decision to set a bill aside, did not meet the Zweni criteria for appealability. The order did not resolve any portion of the substantive relief in the main proceedings, nor did it prevent the appellant from proceeding with taxation afresh. As a result, the appeal was dismissed with costs, including counsel’s fees on scale B.

The judgment reinforces the principle that a court order setting aside a taxation is not appealable, unless it satisfies the criteria of finality. This is because the cost creditor retains the option to set the taxation down anew, thereby having an opportunity to present its bill afresh to a Taxing Master for taxation.

Cora van der Merwe BA (UJ) BA (Hons) (cum laude) (UP) LLB (Unisa) is a legal practitioner at Cora van der Merwe Attorneys in Pretoria. 

This article was first published in De Rebus in 2025 (April) DR 33.