Mnisi v Makhubela and Another (465/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 285 (14 April 2021)

Mnisi v Makhubela and Another (465/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 285 (14 April 2021)

The application was dismissed because the material facts underlying the applicant's cause of action were disputed and the applicant failed to request referral to oral evidence or comply with procedural requirements. The court found that the opposed motion procedure was inappropriate in the circumstances, as it is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 285
Parties
Applicant: Blantina Mnisi; Respondent: Lamiel Makhubela; Respondent: The Master of the High Court
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 April 2021
Case Number
465/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Motion; Application Struck From Roll for Lack of Urgency and Non Compliance; Final Dismissal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, including previously reserved costs.
Judges
LI Vorster
Legal Topics
Interdict, Disputed Facts in Motion Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Punitive Costs
Civil Procedure Interdict Disputed Facts in Motion Proceedings Abuse of Process Punitive Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blantina Mnisi

Applicant

Lamiel Makhubela

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Motion; Application Struck From Roll for Lack of Urgency and Non Compliance; Final Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interdicts against the first respondent regarding the deceased estate.
  2. 2 Whether the application can succeed where material facts are disputed.
  3. 3 Whether a punitive costs order is justified due to procedural non-compliance and abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the material facts underlying the applicant's cause of action were disputed and the applicant failed to request referral to oral evidence or comply with procedural requirements. The court found that the opposed motion procedure was inappropriate in the circumstances, as it is only suitable where facts are not in dispute. The applicant's repeated non-compliance with the practice manual and failure to follow correct procedure constituted an abuse of process, justifying a punitive costs order against her.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, including previously reserved costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on the scale of attorney and client, such costs to include costs previously reserved between the parties in this application.