Mkhonto v Van Der Nest and Others (25753/2010) [2019] ZAGPPHC 70 (8 February 2019)

Mkhonto v Van Der Nest and Others (25753/2010) [2019] ZAGPPHC 70 (8 February 2019)

The applicant failed to provide credible evidence that she did not authorise the curator bonis application or that her signature was forged. The respondents' version, supported by affidavits and expert reports, stands uncontested. The applicant did not attach or confirm expert reports supporting the minor's capacity to manage his own affairs, and her current position contradicts her previous affidavit and expert consensus. No prima facie case was made for the release of the minor from curatorship. The application for setting aside the costs order against her attorney was unsupported and the applicant lacked locus standi. The request for bank statements was unfounded, as sufficient...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 70
Parties
Applicant: Lalu Sheila Mkhonto; Respondent: Gerrit Van Der Nest; Respondent: Frans Schutte & Matthew Phosa Incorporated; Respondent: Constant Wilsnach; Respondent: Master of the High Court
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 February 2019
Case Number
25753/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
BC Stoop
Legal Topics
Curatorship, Rule 57, Urgent Application, Costs Order, Best Interests of Child
Civil Procedure Family and Children Curatorship Rule 57 Urgent Application Costs Order Best Interests of Child

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

Parties

Lalu Sheila Mkhonto

Applicant

Gerrit Van Der Nest

Respondent

Frans Schutte & Matthew Phosa Incorporated

Respondent

Constant Wilsnach

Respondent

Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of Constant Wilsnach as curator bonis for the minor should be declared null and void ab initio.
  2. 2 Whether the minor is capable of managing his own affairs and should be released from curatorship under Rule 57(14).
  3. 3 Whether the costs order de bonis propriis against the applicant's attorney should be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide credible evidence that she did not authorise the curator bonis application or that her signature was forged. The respondents' version, supported by affidavits and expert reports, stands uncontested. The applicant did not attach or confirm expert reports supporting the minor's capacity to manage his own affairs, and her current position contradicts her previous affidavit and expert consensus. No prima facie case was made for the release of the minor from curatorship. The application for setting aside the costs order against her attorney was unsupported and the applicant lacked locus standi. The request for bank statements was unfounded, as sufficient...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.