The Taxing Master has to give effect to an order of court or agreement between the parties and may not make such an order by proceeding with a taxation without a court order.
Hugo v Hugo 1947 (1) SA 325 (O) at 329 – An order for costs in a divorce action does not include the costs of the interlocutory applications, such as applications for maintenance pendente lite or an application for a contribution towards costs (unless of course the costs of the proceedings were made costs in the cause.
In the same sense, the court has to specifically order what is to happen to the wasted costs of a postponement.
The principle therefor is the court has to give the Taxing Master directions by way of a court order) as to what is to happen with the costs. The Taxing Master has no discretion in this regard.