Masoeu v Masoeu and Others (2039/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 220 (2 June 2023)

Masoeu v Masoeu and Others (2039/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 220 (2 June 2023)

The court found that the confirmatory affidavits of Mr Mokhoto and Ms Nel-Marais did not comply with Regulations 3(1) and 4(1) because they were not signed in the physical presence of the Commissioner of Oaths, and the place of signing was incorrectly stated. The explanation provided by the applicant did not cure the defect, and the affidavits were treated as non-compliant. The court also held that the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant was done without leave of court, contrary to Rule 6(5)(e) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The applicant was not entitled to unilaterally file further affidavits without formal application and court approval. Accordingly, the supplementary...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 220
Parties
Applicant: Puleng Maria Mokoena-Masoeu; Respondent: Maria Mpotseng Nhlapho-Masoeu; Respondent: Lydia Mosidi Masoeu; Respondent: Matshepo Sarah Masoeu-Leche
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2023
Case Number
2039/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Contempt of Court Application; Points in Limine Decided
Outcome
Points in limine 2 and 3 (affidavit compliance and supplementary affidavit) granted with costs in the cause; point in limine of locus standi dismissed with costs in the cause; no order as to costs overall.
Judges
M E Mahlangu
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Affidavit Compliance, Supplementary Affidavit, Uniform Rules of Court, Commissioner of Oaths
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Affidavit Compliance Supplementary Affidavit Uniform Rules of Court Commissioner of Oaths

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Puleng Maria Mokoena-Masoeu

Applicant

Maria Mpotseng Nhlapho-Masoeu

Respondent

Lydia Mosidi Masoeu

Respondent

Matshepo Sarah Masoeu-Leche

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Contempt of Court Application; Points in Limine Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confirmatory affidavits attached to the contempt of court application comply with Regulations 3(1) and 4(1) of the Regulations Governing the Administration of the Oath.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to file a supplementary affidavit without leave of the court in terms of Uniform Rule 6(5)(e).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the confirmatory affidavits of Mr Mokhoto and Ms Nel-Marais did not comply with Regulations 3(1) and 4(1) because they were not signed in the physical presence of the Commissioner of Oaths, and the place of signing was incorrectly stated. The explanation provided by the applicant did not cure the defect, and the affidavits were treated as non-compliant. The court also held that the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant was done without leave of court, contrary to Rule 6(5)(e) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The applicant was not entitled to unilaterally file further affidavits without formal application and court approval. Accordingly, the supplementary...

Court Disposition

Points in limine 2 and 3 (affidavit compliance and supplementary affidavit) granted with costs in the cause; point in limine of locus standi dismissed with costs in the cause; no order as to costs overall.

Orders

  • Point in limine of locus standi is dismissed with costs in the cause.
  • Points in limine 2 and 3 are granted with costs in the cause.