Mnisi and Others v Master of the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 529; 2023 - 013876 (27 June 2023)

Mnisi and Others v Master of the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 529; 2023 - 013876 (27 June 2023)

The court found that the applicants, as authors of the notice of motion, provided separate directives and timelines for Part A and Part B, which must be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning. The applicants did not amend their notice of motion or follow proper procedure to object to the respondents' answering affidavit to Part B. The respondents acted in accordance with the directives in the notice of motion and filed their answering affidavit as required. The court held that there was no justification to disregard the answering affidavit to Part B as pro non scripto. In the interests of justice and proper adjudication, the court allowed the respondents' answering affidavit and...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 529
Parties
Applicant: Jacob Charles Mnisi; Applicant: Menzi John Nyambi; Applicant: Mahlekisane Mosa Chirwa; Applicant: Panyana Enoch Bhembe; Respondent: Master of the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria; Respondent: Smile Zandile Nkosi N.O.; Respondent: Hlupheka Salminah Mohale N.O.; Respondent: Rodah Lindiwe Mgwenya N.O.; Respondent: Josiah Ndabambi Mokoena N.O.; Respondent: Bongani Kenneth Shakoane N.O.; Respondent: Maquandashielias Mathaia N.O.; Respondent: Isaac Sithole N.O.; Respondent: Hendry Sipho Lamola N.O.; Respondent: Mokwazl Them8eka Mdzingase Nkambule N.O.; Respondent: Magolidi Jim Mandlazi N.O.; Respondent: Zulu Samuel Chirwa N.O.; Respondent: Hendry Ntinini Mzimba N.O.; Respondent: Agnes Ntomikayise Mavuso N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2023
Case Number
2023 - 013876
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Postponement of Part B; Interlocutory Objection to Answering Affidavit
Judges
L Badenhorst
Legal Topics
Motion Proceedings, Affidavit Sequence, Trustee Removal, Jurisdiction, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Motion Proceedings Affidavit Sequence Trustee Removal Jurisdiction Costs Order

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Charles Mnisi

Applicant

Menzi John Nyambi

Applicant

Mahlekisane Mosa Chirwa

Applicant

Panyana Enoch Bhembe

Applicant

Master of the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria

Respondent

Smile Zandile Nkosi N.O.

Respondent

Hlupheka Salminah Mohale N.O.

Respondent

Rodah Lindiwe Mgwenya N.O.

Respondent

Josiah Ndabambi Mokoena N.O.

Respondent

Bongani Kenneth Shakoane N.O.

Respondent

Maquandashielias Mathaia N.O.

Respondent

Isaac Sithole N.O.

Respondent

Hendry Sipho Lamola N.O.

Respondent

Mokwazl Them8eka Mdzingase Nkambule N.O.

Respondent

Magolidi Jim Mandlazi N.O.

Respondent

Zulu Samuel Chirwa N.O.

Respondent

Hendry Ntinini Mzimba N.O.

Respondent

Agnes Ntomikayise Mavuso N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Postponement of Part B; Interlocutory Objection to Answering Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' answering affidavit to Part B of the application should be allowed despite the applicants' objection.
  2. 2 Whether the timelines and directives in Part A and Part B of the notice of motion are to be read together or separately.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to have the respondents' answering affidavit to Part B disregarded as pro non scripto.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, as authors of the notice of motion, provided separate directives and timelines for Part A and Part B, which must be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning. The applicants did not amend their notice of motion or follow proper procedure to object to the respondents' answering affidavit to Part B. The respondents acted in accordance with the directives in the notice of motion and filed their answering affidavit as required. The court held that there was no justification to disregard the answering affidavit to Part B as pro non scripto. In the interests of justice and proper adjudication, the court allowed the respondents' answering affidavit and...