Ncongwane v Teixeira and Others (2024/056876) [2025] ZAGPJHC 712 (10 March 2025)

Ncongwane v Teixeira and Others (2024/056876) [2025] ZAGPJHC 712 (10 March 2025)

The applicant failed to comply with the procedural requirements for enrolling the matter on the opposed motion court roll, including proper service, indexing, pagination, and filing of necessary documents. The purported representative did not have the right of appearance in the High Court, rendering his participation irregular. The respondents were entitled to treat the matter as unopposed and place it on the unopposed motion court roll. The court found that the applicant's conduct amounted to non-compliance with the Uniform Rules and Practice Manual, justifying striking the application from the roll and awarding costs against the applicant.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 712
Parties
Applicant: Oupa Jeremiah Ncongwane; Respondent: Magistrate Mr Teixeira; Respondent: Lazarus Ngconwane; Respondent: Meyerton Deputy Sheriff; Respondent: Lautenbach Attorneys
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2025
Case Number
2024/056876
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Struck From the Roll for Non Compliance With Rules and Practice Manual
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for non-compliance with procedural requirements. Costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
WJ du Plessis
Legal Topics
Right of Appearance, Practice Directives, Striking From the Roll, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Right of Appearance Practice Directives Striking From the Roll 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oupa Jeremiah Ncongwane

Applicant

Magistrate Mr Teixeira

Respondent

Lazarus Ngconwane

Respondent

Meyerton Deputy Sheriff

Respondent

Lautenbach Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Struck From the Roll for Non Compliance With Rules and Practice Manual

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant complied with the procedural requirements for enrolling the matter on the opposed motion court roll.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's representative had the right of appearance in the High Court.
  3. 3 Whether the application should be struck from the roll for non-compliance with the Uniform Rules and Practice Manual.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to comply with the procedural requirements for enrolling the matter on the opposed motion court roll, including proper service, indexing, pagination, and filing of necessary documents. The purported representative did not have the right of appearance in the High Court, rendering his participation irregular. The respondents were entitled to treat the matter as unopposed and place it on the unopposed motion court roll. The court found that the applicant's conduct amounted to non-compliance with the Uniform Rules and Practice Manual, justifying striking the application from the roll and awarding costs against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for non-compliance with procedural requirements. Costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll.
  • The applicant is directed to comply with the Uniform Rules of the Court and the Practice Manual should he seek to re-enrol the matter.