Baloyi and Others v Lazarus and Others (Leave to Appeal) (11901/2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 169 (1 November 2024)

Baloyi and Others v Lazarus and Others (Leave to Appeal) (11901/2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 169 (1 November 2024)

The court found that its interpretation of the Supreme Court of Appeal order regarding beneficiary voting rights was correct and that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The evidence presented regarding proxy voting was inconclusive and properly rejected, and the supporting affidavits were considered but found inconsistent. The first applicant lacked locus standi as he was not listed among the beneficiaries entitled to vote. The court concluded that the applicants failed to make out a case for the relief sought and that no sound, rational basis existed to grant leave to appeal.

Citation
[2024] ZALMPPHC 169
Parties
Applicant: Ngwanatau Johannes Baloyi; Applicant: Thupana Joseph Makgoba; Applicant: Sewele Linah Mmola; Applicant: Mmadintshi Martha Rapitsi; Applicant: Jane Mahasha; Applicant: Jimmy Kubjana; Applicant: Ally Maake; Applicant: Frans Kubjana; Applicant: Dusty Maishe Malatjie; Applicant: Curry Letsoalo; Applicant: Mary Ntwampe; Applicant: Veronica Motswi; Applicant: Athana Mafa; Applicant: Lloyide Mashatole; Respondent: Ledwaba Lazarus; Respondent: Gisela Stols; Respondent: The Master of the High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria; Respondent: The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, Limpopo Province; Respondent: Mamphoku Makgoba Community Trust (IT8699/2004); Respondent: Mashebane Daniel Malesa; Respondent: Joseph Kamela Modiba; Respondent: Mothoko Terrence Mosibhla; Respondent: Thetele Joseph Malatji; Respondent: Mankuroane Samuel Modiba; Respondent: Motlatso Ivy Magoele; Respondent: Mmatishi Simon Makgoba; Respondent: Mogowe Windsor Madia; Respondent: Onica Makgobola; Respondent: Mmamokgotla Monica Matlebjane; Respondent: Refilwe Irene Letsoalo; Respondent: Motlokwa Suzan Mojapelo; Respondent: Matome David Modiba; Respondent: Mohale Elias Nyakala; Respondent: Matlu Jacqyeline Makgoba
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 2024
Case Number
11901/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused with costs, including costs to counsel on Scale C.
Judges
M Bresler
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Beneficiary Voting Rights, Proxy Voting, Locus Standi, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Beneficiary Voting Rights Proxy Voting Locus Standi Costs Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ngwanatau Johannes Baloyi

Applicant

Thupana Joseph Makgoba

Applicant

Sewele Linah Mmola

Applicant

Mmadintshi Martha Rapitsi

Applicant

Jane Mahasha

Applicant

Jimmy Kubjana

Applicant

Ally Maake

Applicant

Frans Kubjana

Applicant

Dusty Maishe Malatjie

Applicant

Curry Letsoalo

Applicant

Mary Ntwampe

Applicant

Veronica Motswi

Applicant

Athana Mafa

Applicant

Lloyide Mashatole

Applicant

Ledwaba Lazarus

Respondent

Gisela Stols

Respondent

The Master of the High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria

Respondent

The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, Limpopo Province

Respondent

Mamphoku Makgoba Community Trust (IT8699/2004)

Respondent

Mashebane Daniel Malesa

Respondent

Joseph Kamela Modiba

Respondent

Mothoko Terrence Mosibhla

Respondent

Thetele Joseph Malatji

Respondent

Mankuroane Samuel Modiba

Respondent

Motlatso Ivy Magoele

Respondent

Mmatishi Simon Makgoba

Respondent

Mogowe Windsor Madia

Respondent

Onica Makgobola

Respondent

Mmamokgotla Monica Matlebjane

Respondent

Refilwe Irene Letsoalo

Respondent

Motlokwa Suzan Mojapelo

Respondent

Matome David Modiba

Respondent

Mohale Elias Nyakala

Respondent

Matlu Jacqyeline Makgoba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in excluding successors from the voting process.
  2. 2 Whether voting by proxy was improperly disregarded.
  3. 3 Whether the court failed to consider supporting affidavits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that its interpretation of the Supreme Court of Appeal order regarding beneficiary voting rights was correct and that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The evidence presented regarding proxy voting was inconclusive and properly rejected, and the supporting affidavits were considered but found inconsistent. The first applicant lacked locus standi as he was not listed among the beneficiaries entitled to vote. The court concluded that the applicants failed to make out a case for the relief sought and that no sound, rational basis existed to grant leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused with costs, including costs to counsel on Scale C.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • Applicants are ordered to pay costs, including costs to counsel on Scale C.