Mangolele and Others v S and Others In re Mangolele v S and Others (3373/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 215 (29 August 2022)

Mangolele and Others v S and Others In re Mangolele v S and Others (3373/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 215 (29 August 2022)

The applicants failed to comply with the Western Cape High Court order declaring the first applicant a vexatious litigant, as they did not obtain leave to institute proceedings, did not provide security for costs, and did not satisfy previous cost orders. The court found no evidence of compliance or appeal against the order. The Free State High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or rescission of an order from a court of equal standing. The application was found to be an abuse of process, lacking merit and proper cause of action. The applicants, including those not party to the Western Cape proceedings, were not properly joined and had no locus standi. The application was...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 215
Parties
Applicant: Sylvester Vulani 'Madala' Mangolele; Applicant: The Mangolele Family; Applicant: Petrus Phakamile Sitho; Respondent: The State; Respondent: Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa; Respondent: Nosiviwe Noluthando Mapisa-Nqakula; Respondent: Raymond Mnyayezeli Mlungisi Zondo; Respondent: Government Employee Pension Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 August 2022
Case Number
3373/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with punitive costs against the applicants.
Judges
P.E Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant, Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigant Jurisdiction Abuse of Process Security for Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sylvester Vulani 'Madala' Mangolele

Applicant

The Mangolele Family

Applicant

Petrus Phakamile Sitho

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa

Respondent

Nosiviwe Noluthando Mapisa-Nqakula

Respondent

Raymond Mnyayezeli Mlungisi Zondo

Respondent

Government Employee Pension Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants complied with the Western Cape High Court order declaring the first applicant a vexatious litigant.
  2. 2 Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or rescission of an order from the Western Cape Division.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to comply with the Western Cape High Court order declaring the first applicant a vexatious litigant, as they did not obtain leave to institute proceedings, did not provide security for costs, and did not satisfy previous cost orders. The court found no evidence of compliance or appeal against the order. The Free State High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or rescission of an order from a court of equal standing. The application was found to be an abuse of process, lacking merit and proper cause of action. The applicants, including those not party to the Western Cape proceedings, were not properly joined and had no locus standi. The application was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with punitive costs against the applicants.

Orders

  • The applications are dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered, jointly and severally, the one to pay and the others to be absolved, to pay the costs of the second respondent.