N.T v M.R and Another (1817/2016) [2016] ZAECMHC 32 (21 June 2016)

N.T v M.R and Another (1817/2016) [2016] ZAECMHC 32 (21 June 2016)

The court found that no instructions had been left by the deceased regarding his burial. In such circumstances, the law provides that the deceased's heirs, in order of seniority, are entitled to decide on the burial arrangements. The applicant's attorney withdrew due to a breakdown in instructions, and the applicant was unable to secure new representation by the return date. Given the sensitive nature of the dispute and the lack of opposition to the postponement, the court granted a further postponement and extended the rule nisi to allow the applicant time to obtain legal representation. The matter was postponed for hearing as an opposed application.

Citation
[2016] ZAECMHC 32
Parties
Applicant: N. T.; Respondent: M. R.; Respondent: Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2016
Case Number
1817/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Postponement of Opposed Application; Reasons for Order Postponing Matter
Outcome
The application was postponed to allow the applicant to secure legal representation. The rule nisi was extended.
Judges
S M Mbenenge
Legal Topics
Burial Rights, Dispute Between Parents, Postponement of Application, Rule Nisi Extension
Family and Children Civil Procedure Burial Rights Dispute Between Parents Postponement of Application Rule Nisi Extension

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. T.

Applicant

M. R.

Respondent

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Postponement of Opposed Application; Reasons for Order Postponing Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased had left instructions regarding his burial location.
  2. 2 Who is entitled to decide on the burial arrangements in the absence of such instructions.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be granted a further postponement to secure legal representation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no instructions had been left by the deceased regarding his burial. In such circumstances, the law provides that the deceased's heirs, in order of seniority, are entitled to decide on the burial arrangements. The applicant's attorney withdrew due to a breakdown in instructions, and the applicant was unable to secure new representation by the return date. Given the sensitive nature of the dispute and the lack of opposition to the postponement, the court granted a further postponement and extended the rule nisi to allow the applicant time to obtain legal representation. The matter was postponed for hearing as an opposed application.

Court Disposition

The application was postponed to allow the applicant to secure legal representation. The rule nisi was extended.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is further extended.
  • The matter is postponed to Thursday, 23 June 2016, for hearing as an opposed application.