Chauke v Kingdom of Netherlands and Others (62092020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 43 (28 January 2021)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

CASE NO: 62092020

(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO

(3) REVISED. YES

28 January 2021

In the matter between:

DAVID CHAUKE Plaintiff and THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS First Defendant THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS Second Defendant THE CEO OF EMIRATES AIRLINES Third Defendant THE CEO OF PENTRAVEL AGENCY Fourth Defendant THE CEO OF NEDBANK Fifth Defendant THE MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION Sixth Defendant THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPULIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Seventh Defendant THE MINISTER OF FINANCE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Eighth Respondent THE MINISTER OF POLICE OF THE REPULBIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Ninth Defendant THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Tenth Defendant THE GOVERNOR OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK Eleventh Defendant THE CEO OF SANRAL Twelfth Defendant THE BANKING ASSOCIATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Thirteenth Defendant THE MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Fourteenth Defendant THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR OF SOUTH AFRICA Fifteenth Defendant THE MINISTER OF VALUATIONS- PLANNING AND MONITORING IN THE PRESIDENCY Sixteenth Defendant THE OMBUDSMAN FOR BANKING SERVICES FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Seventeenth Defendant THE MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Eighteenth Defendant HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS Nineteenth Defendant THE LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA Twentieth Defendant MASHEGO ATTORNEYS INCORPORATED Twenty First Defendant THEMBA NGOBENI ATTORNEYS Twenty Second Defendant EVANS MATHEBULA Twenty Third Defendant RADEBE ATTORNEYS INCORPORATED Twenty Fourth Defendant GOODMAN MHLANGA Twenty Fifth Defendant WITS LEGAL CLINIC Twenty Sixth Defendant PROFESSOR CHARLES JORDI Twenty Seventh Defendant THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUH AFRICA Twenty Eighth Defendant THE JOHANNESBURG SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES Twenty Ninth Defendant ADVOCATE TSHEPO NYANDENI Thirtieth Defendant MACINTYRE VAN DER POST INC. Thirty First Defendant CEO OF VFSS GLOBAL AGENCY Thirty Second Defendant HLONGA INCORPORATED ATTORNEYS Thirty Third Defendant MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Thirty Fourth Defendant

_________________________________________________________________________

JUDGEMENT

Because of the current pandemic, argument in this case was heard by means of video conferencing technologies. I am the author of this judgment and prepared it myself. It will be handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives by way of electronic mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on the electronic application called Caselines. The date on which this judgment is handed down shall be deemed to be 28 January 2021.

AVVAKOUMIDES AJ

1. On 5 January 2021 I handed down judgment in this case upholding the Eleventh Defendant’s exception against the Plaintiff’s action. I inadvertently did not include in the judgment that the State Attorney had briefed counsel on behalf of the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth,

Eighteenth and Thirty Fourth Defendants (the State Defendants) in a similar exception against the Plaintiff’s action based on the same grounds. This was an obvious error, and the purpose of this judgment is to rectify the error in terms of rule 42.

2. The State Defendants’ exception is in line with that of the Eleventh Defendant and for the same reasons contained in the main judgment, their exception stands to be upheld. I accordingly rectify the main judgment to include the State Defendants exception.

3. The Eleventh Defendant and State Defendants argued that the usual relief should exceptions be upheld is to afford the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend. However, the summons filed is so materially at odds with rule 18 that it would defeat the purpose of rule 23 to afford the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend. The Eleventh Defendant and State Defendants submitted that the proper relief would be to uphold the exceptions and to grant costs against the Plaintiff. I am inclined to agree.

4. The order for costs sought by the Eleventh Defendant and State Defendants against the Plaintiff is because, on a cursory glance at the incomprehensible verbiage filed, indicates that the Plaintiff has sought the same relief, against the same parties since 2009, despite having matters dismissed in previous courts. Furthermore, the conduct by the Plaintiff is vexatious, because he has launched multiple notices and documents which have no grounding in rules and have culminated in substantial escalation of costs for the Defendants.

5. Under the circumstances, the main judgment of 5 January 2021 is hereby amended as follows:

5.1 The Eleventh Defendants’, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,

Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Eighteenth and Thirty Fourth Defendants’ (the State Defendants) exception is upheld.

5.2 The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the Eleventh Defendants’ and the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Eighteenth and Thirty Fourth Defendants (the State Defendants) costs.

G.T. AVVAKOUMIDES

ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

Representation for parties:

On behalf of Plaintiff:

D Chauke (in person)

On behalf of Eleventh Defendant: SJ Martin

Instructed by:

Tshisevhi Gwana Ratshimbilani Inc.

On behalf of the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Eighteenth and Thirty Fourth Defendants (the State Defendants)

M.M Mojapelo and G.M. Mamabolo

Instructed by:

State Attorney