Letselebe and Others v Bowles and Others (311/2017) [2018] ZANCHC 72 (28 September 2018)

Letselebe and Others v Bowles and Others (311/2017) [2018] ZANCHC 72 (28 September 2018)

The court found that Reverend Khumalo had a legal interest in the matter but failed to demonstrate a prima facie case or seriousness in pursuing relief, as evidenced by his withdrawal of the initial intervention application and acceptance of alternative employment. The application was further undermined by the failure to join necessary parties, namely the receiving diocese and the Church Council, both of whom had a direct and substantial interest in the outcome. The court held that piecemeal joinder would result in unnecessary expense and inconvenience. The applicants' withdrawal of Part A of the Notice of Motion and lack of tender for costs further supported the respondents' entitlement...

Citation
[2018] ZANCHC 72
Parties
Applicant: KR Letselebe; Applicant: Congregational Council of the Evangelical Church in Southern Africa Cape Orange Diocese – St Martin Parish; Applicant: Members of the Congregation of The Evangelical Church in Southern Africa Cape Orange Diocese – St Martin Parish; Respondent: Bishop WR Bowles; Respondent: Reverend MZ Manong; Respondent: MW Jongole; Respondent: Reverend AT Khunou; Respondent: Diocesan Council of the Evangelical Church in South Africa Cape Orange Diocese
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2018
Case Number
311/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Joinder/intervention Preceding Review Hearing
Outcome
Application for joinder of Reverend Khumalo as applicant dismissed with costs. Applicants ordered to pay costs of proceedings in respect of Part A of the Notice of Motion.
Judges
CC Williams, CJ Olivier
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Locus Standi, Exhaustion of Internal Remedies, Ultra Vires Decision

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KR Letselebe

Applicant

Congregational Council of the Evangelical Church in Southern Africa Cape Orange Diocese – St Martin Parish

Applicant

Members of the Congregation of The Evangelical Church in Southern Africa Cape Orange Diocese – St Martin Parish

Applicant

Bishop WR Bowles

Respondent

Reverend MZ Manong

Respondent

MW Jongole

Respondent

Reverend AT Khunou

Respondent

Diocesan Council of the Evangelical Church in South Africa Cape Orange Diocese

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Joinder/intervention Preceding Review Hearing

  1. 1 Whether Reverend Khumalo should be permitted to intervene and be joined as an applicant in the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the joinder of Reverend Khumalo cures the lack of locus standi of the original applicants.
  3. 3 Whether Reverend Khumalo has made out a prima facie case and is serious about obtaining relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Reverend Khumalo had a legal interest in the matter but failed to demonstrate a prima facie case or seriousness in pursuing relief, as evidenced by his withdrawal of the initial intervention application and acceptance of alternative employment. The application was further undermined by the failure to join necessary parties, namely the receiving diocese and the Church Council, both of whom had a direct and substantial interest in the outcome. The court held that piecemeal joinder would result in unnecessary expense and inconvenience. The applicants' withdrawal of Part A of the Notice of Motion and lack of tender for costs further supported the respondents' entitlement...

Court Disposition

Application for joinder of Reverend Khumalo as applicant dismissed with costs. Applicants ordered to pay costs of proceedings in respect of Part A of the Notice of Motion.

Orders

  • The application for the joinder of Reverend Khumalo as an applicant is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs in respect of the proceedings in Part A of the Notice of Motion.