Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Another v University of the Free State and Others (3497/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 511 (27 December 2023)

Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Another v University of the Free State and Others (3497/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 511 (27 December 2023)

The court found that the Sixth Respondent did not seek leave to file the Explanatory Affidavit, nor did the previous orders grant a blanket licence to file any affidavit at will. The orders were specific in permitting supplementation, answering, or replying by way of further affidavit, but only with proper...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 511
Parties
Applicant: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality; Applicant: The Executive Mayor of Mangaung Municipality; Respondent: University of the Free State; Respondent: Adv. Phillip Mokoena SC; Respondent: Adv. Gcbani Ngangisa; Respondent: Adv. L Tlelai; Respondent: Moroka Attorneys Inc.; Respondent: Adv. Tankiso Mea
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 December 2023
Case Number
3497/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Affidavit Under Rule 30
Outcome
Application to strike out the Explanatory Affidavit of the Sixth Respondent is granted.
Judges
P E Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Uniform Rule 30, Filing of Further Affidavits, Joinder of Parties, Court Discretion on Affidavits
Civil Procedure Uniform Rule 30 Filing of Further Affidavits Joinder of Parties Court Discretion on Affidavits

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Applicant

The Executive Mayor of Mangaung Municipality

Applicant

University of the Free State

Respondent

Adv. Phillip Mokoena SC

Respondent

Adv. Gcbani Ngangisa

Respondent

Adv. L Tlelai

Respondent

Moroka Attorneys Inc.

Respondent

Adv. Tankiso Mea

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Affidavit Under Rule 30

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Explanatory Affidavit filed by the Sixth Respondent constitutes an irregular step under Rule 30.
  2. 2 Whether the Sixth Respondent was entitled to file the Explanatory Affidavit without leave of the court.
  3. 3 Interpretation of the orders of 11 August 2022 and 27 October 2022 regarding the filing of further affidavits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Sixth Respondent did not seek leave to file the Explanatory Affidavit, nor did the previous orders grant a blanket licence to file any affidavit at will. The orders were specific in permitting supplementation, answering, or replying by way of further affidavit, but only with proper application and court approval. The Sixth Respondent failed to provide a plausible explanation for not including the relevant facts in his earlier affidavit, and the Explanatory Affidavit did not address new matters or evidence. Its filing constituted an irregular step under Rule 30, and the application to strike out the affidavit succeeded.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out the Explanatory Affidavit of the Sixth Respondent is granted.

Orders

  • The Explanatory Affidavit of the Sixth Respondent, Advocate Tankiso Mea delivered on 22 November 2022 is struck out.
  • The First Applicant and the Sixth Respondent are ordered, jointly and severally, the one to pay the other to be absolved, to pay the costs of this application, which costs shall include the costs of one Counsel.