Mudau v Ndivhuwo and Others (779/2023) [2023] ZALMPTHC 11 (12 October 2023)

Mudau v Ndivhuwo and Others (779/2023) [2023] ZALMPTHC 11 (12 October 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to justify the urgency of the application, as the dispute over the property and deprivation of access had existed since 2022, and no reasonable explanation was provided for the delay in bringing the application. The applicant's founding affidavit was found to be defective due to non-compliance with Regulation 2(1)(a-c) of the Regulations Governing the Administration of Oaths, rendering it inadmissible. The court upheld both points in limine raised by the respondents—lack of urgency and defective affidavit—and dismissed the urgent application with costs. The applicant was ordered to set down the main application on the opposed motion court roll...

Citation
[2023] ZALMPTHC 11
Parties
Applicant: Mmbengeni Sydney Mudau; Respondent: Raphalalani Ndivhuwo; Respondent: Makhare Tshinakaho; Respondent: Tshililo Maumela
Court
Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 October 2023
Case Number
779/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Ruling on Points in Limine and Urgency
Outcome
Urgent application dismissed; points in limine upheld; costs awarded against applicant.
Judges
TC Tshidada
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Administration of Oaths, Ownership Dispute, Commissioning of Affidavits
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgent Interdict Administration of Oaths Ownership Dispute Commissioning of Affidavits

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mmbengeni Sydney Mudau

Applicant

Raphalalani Ndivhuwo

Respondent

Makhare Tshinakaho

Respondent

Tshililo Maumela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Ruling on Points in Limine and Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be heard as a matter of urgency under Rule 6(12).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's founding affidavit complies with Regulation 2(1)(a-c) of the Regulations Governing the Administration of Oaths.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has justified the urgency of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to justify the urgency of the application, as the dispute over the property and deprivation of access had existed since 2022, and no reasonable explanation was provided for the delay in bringing the application. The applicant's founding affidavit was found to be defective due to non-compliance with Regulation 2(1)(a-c) of the Regulations Governing the Administration of Oaths, rendering it inadmissible. The court upheld both points in limine raised by the respondents—lack of urgency and defective affidavit—and dismissed the urgent application with costs. The applicant was ordered to set down the main application on the opposed motion court roll...

Court Disposition

Urgent application dismissed; points in limine upheld; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The point in limine regarding non-compliance with Regulation 2(1)(a-c) of the Regulations Governing the Administration of Oath is upheld with costs.
  • The point in limine regarding lack of urgency is upheld with costs.