Mntsweni and Others v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (020044/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 242 (11 March 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 242
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Mooki
- Case number
- 020044/2024
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Mooki
- Case number
- 020044/2024
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The North Gauteng High Court does not have jurisdiction over orders issued by the Regional Court in the North West Province. The cause of action arose outside the area of jurisdiction of this Court. Even if jurisdiction existed, the relief sought—a stay of a Regional Court order—is not competent, as the High Court's powers in relation to Regional Court proceedings are limited to appeals and reviews. The application must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Court disposition
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded against applicants.
Orders
- The application is enrolled as urgent in terms of Rule 6(12).
- The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The applicants are ordered to pay costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Samuel Kgoloko Mntsweni
Applicant Counsel: P LebeaNthabiseng Thebe
Applicant Counsel: P LebeaMary Kelebogile Molwantwa
Applicant Counsel: P LebeaKoketso Ignatious Malatse
Applicant Counsel: P LebeaKabelo Tshwatlhang
Applicant Counsel: P LebeaGovernment Employees Pension Fund
RespondentC[...] K[...] T[...]
Respondent Counsel: WT RakauSheriff, ODI
RespondentStandard Bank Limited
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Monthly Maintenance Ordered by Regional Court: ZAR 4,500
03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict and Suspension of Regional Court Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Does the North Gauteng High Court have jurisdiction to suspend or interdict enforcement of an order made by the Regional Court in the North West Province?
- 02
Are the applicants entitled to relief in the absence of an appeal or review of the Regional Court order?
- 03
Do the applicants have standing to seek the relief requested?
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought urgent relief to suspend enforcement of a Regional Court order pending the appointment of an executor to a deceased estate, and to interdict payment of pension interest and execution of the order. They argued that the order was granted erroneously due to a pending divorce action in the High Court and that the respondent failed to disclose this to the Regional Court.
- Respondent
- The second respondent opposed the application, raising preliminary objections that the North Gauteng High Court lacked jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in the North West Province, that the applicants lacked standing, and that the High Court may only interfere with Magistrates' Court orders by way of appeal or review, which the applicants did not seek.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 21 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
A High Court has jurisdiction only over causes arising within its area and persons residing or being in its area of jurisdiction.
- 02
Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
The High Court may only consider appeals or reviews of orders made by a Regional Court; it cannot stay such orders outside those procedures.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The North Gauteng High Court does not have jurisdiction over orders issued by the Regional Court in the North West Province. The cause of action arose outside the area of jurisdiction of this Court. Even if jurisdiction existed, the relief sought—a stay of a Regional Court order—is not competent, as the High Court's powers in relation to Regional Court proceedings are limited to appeals and reviews. The application must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Obiter and limits
- The application was properly enrolled as urgent in terms of Rule 6(12).
- The applicants did not file a replying affidavit to address the preliminary objections.
Court disposition
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded against applicants.
- The application is enrolled as urgent in terms of Rule 6(12).
- The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The applicants are ordered to pay costs.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No: 020044/2024
Reportable: No
Of interest to other Judges: No
Revised: No
Date:
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
SAMUEL KGOLOKO
MNTSWENI
1ST Applicant
NTHABISENG
THEBE
2ND Applicant
MARY KELEBOGILE
MOLWANTWA
3RD Applicant
KOKETSO IGNATIOUS
MALATSE
4TH Applicant
KABELO TSHWATLHANG
5TH Applicant
and
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
PENSION FUND
1ST Respondent
C[...] K[...] T[...]
2ND Respondent
SHERIFF,
ODI
3RD Respondent
STANDARD BANK LIMITED
4TH Respondent
JUDGEMENT
MOOKI J
1
The applicants seek the following relief:
Suspension of paragraph 2 of an order made in the regional magistrate’s court pending the appointment of an executor to a deceased estate.
Interdicting the Government Employees Pension Fund from paying a pension interest until the appointment of an executor to a deceased estate.
Interdicting the Sheriff from executing paragraph 2 of an order made in the regional magistrate’s court pending the appointment of an executor to a deceased estate.
2
The applicants approached the Court on an urgent basis. The Court determined that the matter was urgent. The second respondent
opposes the relief sought and raised several preliminary objections. Those objections are:
2.1 The Court lack jurisdiction, in that the applicants’ cause of action is based on an order by the Regional Court of the Regional Division of the North West, held at Ga-Rankuwa; within the jurisdiction of the North-West Division of the High Court.
2.2 The applicants lack standing for the relief that they seek.
2.3 No cause of action in that the High Court may interfere with an order of the Magistrates’ Court only in an appeal or a review of such an order; whereas the applicants do not seek such appeal and/or review.
3
The applicants did not file a replying affidavit.
4
The second respondent, whom I describe as “the respondent” for ease of reference, was married to D[...] B[...] T[...] (“the deceased”). They were married in terms of a civil marriage on 3 May 2021.
5
The deceased issued summons in divorce proceedings in the High Court in 2022. The deceased then abandoned the proceedings. The respondent instituted divorce proceedings out of the Ga-Rankuwa Regional Court, North-West Division. She served process on the deceased in person. The decease did not oppose the action. The regional court granted a decree of divorce on 9 October 2023, on the following terms:
Equal division of joint estate. The defendant must pay maintenance in the sum of R4500 per month in respect of the plaintiff for a period of twelf (sic) (12) months, from 07/12/23 until 07/12/24 payable into plaintiff’s standard bank account number […]. That part (50%) of the pension interst (sic) in the GEPF pension fund due or assigned to the plaintiff be paid to the plaintiff on the date of divorce. That the (Asst.) Registrar forthwith notify the Fund concerned that an endorsement be made in the records of that Fund that part of the pension interest concerned is so payable to the other party and that the administrator of the pension fund furnish proof of such endorsement to the (Asst.) Registrar, in writing within one (1) month of receipt of such notification. (as per section 11 of Act 55 of 2003) the GEPF pension fund is ordered to pay an amount equal to 50% of the value of pension fund no. […] of the defendant as on date of divorce to the plaintiff. No order is made in respect of costs.
6
The deceased brought an application on 27 November 2023, seeking a rescission of the order by the Regional Court. He sought relief that the order be declared void because:
6.1 There was a pending divorce action in the High Court; and
6.2 The decree of divorce was granted erroneously because the respondent did not advise the court that she had been served with summons out of another court.
7
The respondent took issue with the papers as formulated by the deceased. The deceased was ordered to amend his papers. The deceased did not file amended papers as ordered.
8
The Regional Court issued a rule nisi on 14 December 2023. The rule was discharged on 16 February 2024.
9
The respondent’s point on jurisdiction is dispositive of the matter.
10 The applicants seek the Court to intervene in relation to an order by a Regional Court in the Regional Division in the North-West Province. The Gauteng Division of the High Court has no jurisdiction over regional courts in the North West Province.
11
Section 21 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 deals with the jurisdiction of the High Court:
“Persons over whom and matters in relation to which Divisions have jurisdiction.—
(1) A Division has jurisdiction over all persons residing or being in, and in relation to all causes arising and all offences triable within, its area of jurisdiction and all other matters of which it may according to law take cognisance, and has the power ------”
12 The cause of action in this matter arouse outside the area of jurisdiction of this Court.
13 The relief sought would not have been competent even if this Court had jurisdiction. That is because the High Court has limited jurisdiction in relation to proceedings in a Regional Court. The High Court may only consider appeals or reviews of orders by a Regional Court. A stay of an order by a Regional Court falls outside the powers of a High Court.
14 The application cannot succeed. I make the following order:
14.1 The application is enrolled as urgent in terms of Rule 6(12).
14.2 The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
14.3 The applicants are ordered to pay costs.
Omphemetse Mooki
Judge of the High Court
Heard: 6 March 2024
Decided: 11 March 2024
For the applicants: P Lebea
Instructed by: Fadane LL Attorneys Inc.
For the second respondent: WT Rakau (Advocate with a trust account)
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.