Ndabeni and Others v Leeming and Others (Reasons) (6008/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 293 (2 December 2024)

Ndabeni and Others v Leeming and Others (Reasons) (6008/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 293 (2 December 2024)

The application was dismissed because it was not accompanied by a properly commissioned affidavit as required by the Uniform Rules of Court and the Regulations Governing the Administration of an Oath or Affirmation. The first applicant failed to provide evidence of authorization to act on behalf of the second and third applicants, and there were no confirmatory affidavits from those entities. The founding affidavit did not establish locus standi or a cause of action connecting the facts to the relief sought, namely the interdict against hosting the Nedbank Golf Challenge. The conduct of the applicants, including launching a second application under a new case number without withdrawing...

Citation
[2024] ZANWHC 293
Parties
Applicant: Vuyisile Charles Ndabeni; Applicant: Global Tourism Legacy Networks (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Motswana Re Na Le Rona NPC; Respondent: Anthony Leeming; Respondent: Sun International of South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bakgatla Ba Kgafela Traditional Authority; Respondent: Bakubung Traditional Authority; Respondent: Lereko Investment (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: North West Gambling Board; Respondent: North West Development Corporation; Respondent: North West Provincial Government; Respondent: National Department of Public Works; Respondent: Moses Kotane Local Municipality
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2024
Case Number
6008/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Order and Reasons Following Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with punitive costs order against the first applicant.
Judges
T Masike
Legal Topics
Founding Affidavit Requirements, Locus Standi, Commissioning of Affidavits, Abuse of Process, Punitive Costs, Urgent Interdict
Civil Procedure Founding Affidavit Requirements Locus Standi Commissioning of Affidavits Abuse of Process Punitive Costs Urgent Interdict

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vuyisile Charles Ndabeni

Applicant

Global Tourism Legacy Networks (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Motswana Re Na Le Rona NPC

Applicant

Anthony Leeming

Respondent

Sun International of South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Bakgatla Ba Kgafela Traditional Authority

Respondent

Bakubung Traditional Authority

Respondent

Lereko Investment (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

North West Gambling Board

Respondent

North West Development Corporation

Respondent

North West Provincial Government

Respondent

National Department of Public Works

Respondent

Moses Kotane Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Order and Reasons Following Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was properly supported by a valid affidavit as required by the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the first applicant was duly authorized to act on behalf of the second and third applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants established locus standi to seek the relief claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because it was not accompanied by a properly commissioned affidavit as required by the Uniform Rules of Court and the Regulations Governing the Administration of an Oath or Affirmation. The first applicant failed to provide evidence of authorization to act on behalf of the second and third applicants, and there were no confirmatory affidavits from those entities. The founding affidavit did not establish locus standi or a cause of action connecting the facts to the relief sought, namely the interdict against hosting the Nedbank Golf Challenge. The conduct of the applicants, including launching a second application under a new case number without withdrawing...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with punitive costs order against the first applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The first applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney and client scale, including the costs of senior counsel.