Mxhosana v Mxhosana N.O and Others (5858/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 648 (26 August 2022)

Mxhosana v Mxhosana N.O and Others (5858/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 648 (26 August 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish locus standi to challenge the appointment of the executrix, as he did not prove that he was adopted by the deceased under customary law or otherwise. The evidence presented, including affidavits and documents, was inconsistent and did not substantiate the claim of adoption. The applicant's own supplementary affidavit contradicted his earlier assertions, confirming that the deceased was not involved in his life at birth and only assumed responsibility later. The respondent's denials were corroborated by the applicant's admissions. The requirements for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act were not met, as there...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 648
Parties
Appellant: Paul Mistry Mxhosana; Respondent: Diserlecoe Sarah Mxhosana N.O; Respondent: Capitec Bank Limited; Respondent: Master of the High Court; Respondent: MMI Group Holdings T/A Metropolitan
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 August 2022
Case Number
5858/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench After Dismissal of Initial Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
N Khumalo
Legal Topics
Customary Law Adoption, Intestate Succession, Locus Standi, Leave to Appeal, Burden of Proof
Civil Procedure Family and Children Customary Law Adoption Intestate Succession Locus Standi Leave to Appeal Burden of Proof

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Mistry Mxhosana

Appellant

Diserlecoe Sarah Mxhosana N.O

Respondent

Capitec Bank Limited

Respondent

Master of the High Court

Respondent

MMI Group Holdings T/A Metropolitan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench After Dismissal of Initial Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established locus standi to challenge the appointment of the executrix.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant proved adoption in terms of customary law or otherwise to be recognised as a descendant of the deceased.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 are met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish locus standi to challenge the appointment of the executrix, as he did not prove that he was adopted by the deceased under customary law or otherwise. The evidence presented, including affidavits and documents, was inconsistent and did not substantiate the claim of adoption. The applicant's own supplementary affidavit contradicted his earlier assertions, confirming that the deceased was not involved in his life at birth and only assumed responsibility later. The respondent's denials were corroborated by the applicant's admissions. The requirements for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act were not met, as there...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.