Maimane (64547), Ex parte [2016] ZAGPPHC 424 (3 June 2016)

Maimane (64547), Ex parte [2016] ZAGPPHC 424 (3 June 2016)

The court found that no curator bonis was ever appointed to manage Priscilla Maimane's affairs, either by Joffe J or Kollapen J. The application to set aside such an appointment was therefore misconceived and incompetent. The applicant's legal representatives failed to ascertain the existence of a curator bonis and pursued relief that could not be granted. Furthermore, expert evidence confirmed that Priscilla is now of sound mind and capable of managing her own affairs, rendering any application for curatorship unnecessary. The court also noted possible misconduct by the applicant's former attorneys in retaining a substantial portion of the RAF payout without a valid contingency fee...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 424
Parties
Applicant: Daisy Busisiwe Maimane
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2016
Case Number
64547/2013
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs de bonis propriis against the applicant's legal representatives.
Judges
S.L. Magardie
Legal Topics
Curatorship, Trust Management, Road Accident Fund, Legal Costs, Contingency Fees
Civil Procedure Family and Children Curatorship Trust Management Road Accident Fund Legal Costs Contingency Fees

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daisy Busisiwe Maimane

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Ex Parte Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a curator bonis was ever appointed to manage Priscilla Maimane's affairs.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the alleged curator bonis discharged and herself appointed as curator.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's former attorneys lawfully retained a portion of the RAF payout.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no curator bonis was ever appointed to manage Priscilla Maimane's affairs, either by Joffe J or Kollapen J. The application to set aside such an appointment was therefore misconceived and incompetent. The applicant's legal representatives failed to ascertain the existence of a curator bonis and pursued relief that could not be granted. Furthermore, expert evidence confirmed that Priscilla is now of sound mind and capable of managing her own affairs, rendering any application for curatorship unnecessary. The court also noted possible misconduct by the applicant's former attorneys in retaining a substantial portion of the RAF payout without a valid contingency fee...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs de bonis propriis against the applicant's legal representatives.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs de bonis propriis.
  • The registrar is directed to furnish a copy of this judgment to the Secretary of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces to investigate possible acts of misconduct on the part of the applicant's former attorneys, J J S Manton Attorneys.