Rescission – Ex parte orders – Rule 103(1)(a) – Ex parte orders are not final despite their form not including a rule nisi or a return date – Proper interpretation of ‘any order or judgment’ envisaged in rule 103(1)(a) includes simple interlocutory orders – Facts permitting, rescission of ex parte orders may be brought under rule 103(1)(a) notwithstanding their provisional nature and the procedures provided under rules 72(4) and 72(7) – The phrase ‘granted in the absence of any party affected thereby’ in rule 103(1)(a) entails two requirements namely a party’s absence and an error by the court – Ex parte orders granted on proper procedure for ex parte applications mandated by the court rules and supported by the cases’ nature and which remain provisional while the affected parties could return to court to have the ex parte applications considered in their presence but opted not to are not orders sought or granted in their absence for the purpose of rule 103(1)(a) – Orders to which parties were procedurally entitled when they were issued cannot be rescinded under rule 103(1)(a) absent the existence of facts at that time of which the court was unaware that would have precluded them being granted.

Applications and Motions – Urgent applications – Trite principles that applicant must satisfy both requirements of rule 73(4) of the rules of court for the matter to be heard on an urgent basis – The Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements under rule 73(4) - The applicant have failed to set out the circumstances which render this application urgent as well as why the applicant will not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.

Costs – Review of taxation – Rule 75(1) – Legislature’s intention – To provide a remedy for party dissatisfied with a taxing officer’s ruling to any item or part of an item objected to at the taxation or disallowed mero motu by the taxing officer – Exception to rule considered but declined.