Onovo v Minister of Police and Others (2025/059344) [2025] ZAGPJHC 257 (23 May 2025)

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

Case Number: 2025-059344

(1) REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3) REVISED: YES

In the matter between:

ONOVO: MARK UCHENNA

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF POLICE

First Respondent

SIYAYA MEDIA NETWORK (MOJA TV CHANNELS (PTY) LTD) Second Respondent

XOLANI KHUMALO

Third Respondent

INDEPENDENT PLICE INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTORATE (IPID) Fourth Respondent

In re:

THE MINISTER OF POLICE

Respondent

JUDGMENT

CRUTCHFIELD J

[1] The applicant, Uchenna Mark Onovo, approaches this court urgently for relief that the respondents disclose such information as is within their knowledge in respect of the alleged assault and kidnap of one Mr Silas Ani (“the abducted person”).

[2] The first respondent, the Minister of Police, the second respondent, Siyaya Media Network (Moja TV Channels (Pty) Ltd), and Xolani Khumalo, the third respondent, oppose the application.

[3] The proceedings came before this court on an urgent basis on 30 April 2025, the sole respondent at that stage being the Minister of Police.

[4] There is a dispute as to what transpired during the proceedings before Adams J on 30 April 2025, and a dispute in respect of the order that Adams J granted pursuant to the hearing on 30 April 2025. Before me, the second and third respondents, with whom the first respondent made common cause, argued that the application was res judicata, that it was dealt with on the merits before Adams J who dismissed the application.

[5] The respondents rely on a court order signed by the Registrar of this Court and stamped with the court stamp dated 19 May 2025, providing that the application is dismissed with costs (“the order”). The order is uploaded on the caseLines digital profile at 0001-248.

[6] The order is endorsed by way of a court stamp dated 19 May 2025 and signed by the registrar. The order is attached to the first respondent’s supplementary papers delivered in response to the applicant’s refiling of the application on 19 May 2025.

[7] The applicant’s legal representatives argued before me that the order of Adams J dated 19 May 2025 and referred to above, was incorrect and that Adams J in fact ordered that the matter be removed or postponed and that the second and third respondents be joined to the proceedings.

[8] The applicant’s legal representative’s submissions were not based on an affidavit recording what transpired at the hearing on 30 April 2025 and the transcribed record of the proceedings on that date, was not placed before me.

[9] In effect, the submissions of the applicant’s legal representative amounted to evidence delivered from the Bar, in the absence of affidavit evidence, such submissions being inadmissible before me.

[10] Furthermore, such evidence led from the bar is prejudicial in the extreme, not only to the respondents, especially in urgent proceedings, but also to this court and to the administration of justice in general.

[11] The applicant’s legal representative argued that he or his attorney had approached Adams J’s secretary in an attempt to procure a corrected order, but to no avail.

[12] Court orders are valid and binding until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. This principle is an intrinsic part of the rule of law. Court orders must be complied with until they are set aside by an appeal court or pursuant to rescission proceedings. Final orders generally are conclusive of the matter respectively.[1]

[13] I am bound by the order, signed and stamped by the registrar dated 19 May 2025, reflecting that the application was dismissed with costs. There is no entitlement for me to go behind a court order and deal with the application on the basis that the order is incorrectly typed or that it should provide for a different outcome in respect of the proceedings.

[14] The order, date stamped 19 May 2025, binds this court and I am duty-bound to respect it.

[15] The parties argued the application before me on 20 May 2025, on which day I reserved judgment for delivery at 10h30 in open court on 23 May 2025. This is that judgment.

[16] During the course of 22 May 2025, my secretary was approached by persons on behalf of the applicant’s legal representatives to the effect that I needed to listen to recordings of the proceedings on 30 April 2025 before Adams J, obtained from Adams J’s secretary. The applicant’s legal representatives should know that such conduct is irregular and does not comply with the rules and procedures of this court. I declined to listen to such recordings.

[17] Audio evidence such as the recordings of the proceedings before Adams J on 30 April 2025, is properly placed before a court by way of that audio evidence being transcribed and placed before a subsequent court on affidavit. Affidavit evidence of the recordings of the proceedings before Adams J on 30 April 2025 was not made available to this court as it ought to have been, in the event that the applicant wished this court to have regard to the evidence of what occurred during the proceedings before Adams J.

[18] Furthermore, at approximately 14h00 on 22 May 2025, the applicant’s attorney of record remitted what purports to be an amended court order dated 22 May 2025, stamped and signed by a registrar different from the one who signed the order dated 19 May 2025, to my secretary.

[19] The amended court order dated 22 May 2025 (“the amended order”) provides that the matter is struck off the roll and that the applicant should pay the respondent’s costs including the respondent’s counsel on scale B.

[20] The amended order does not provide for the joinder of the second and third respondents as argued by the applicant’s counsel before me on 20 May 2025.

[21] The amended order was not delivered under affidavit explaining how the applicant procured the amended order and pursuant to what evidence the applicant procured the amended order, given that the transcribed record of the proceedings before Adams J was not placed before me. The question arises as what evidence was placed before the registrar on 22 May 2025, to procure an order

in amended terms being signed by that registrar.

[22] At this stage, this court, is faced with two orders, both in contradictory terms and without any explanation made on oath as to the differences in those court orders, or how the second court order, the amended order, dated 22 May 2025, was procured on behalf of the applicant. It is not difficult to understand that conduct and proceedings of this type is irregular and prejudicial to the administration of justice.

[23] Moreover, the delivery of the amended order in the manner described above and at such a late stage, is obviously prejudicial to the respondents who must be given an opportunity to deal with the amended order and to make such arguments as they might wish to make.

[24] Notwithstanding the litany of irregularities that I have recorded above, I am deeply sympathetic to the applicant and to the concerns of the community engaged with this matter and affected by the assault and disappearance of the abducted person. Notwithstanding that sympathy, I cannot allow the matter to continue to judgment in the light of the two contradictory court orders.

[25] In the circumstances I am moved to craft an order that will take account of the applicant’s concerns and the issues that they experience in respect of this matter but I am also obliged to protect the rights not only of the applicant but also of the respondents.

[26] In an attempt to give the applicant’s legal representatives an opportunity to explain the differences in the two court orders and to place before any future court a recording of what transpired before Adams J on 30 April 2025, and to persuade a court in the future that the application on 30 April 2025 was not dismissed by Adams J, I am minded to remove this matter from the roll on the basis that each party pays its own costs.

[27] In the circumstances, I grant the following order:

1. The application is removed from the roll of this court.

2. Each party is obliged to make payment of its own costs incurred in the proceedings before me on 20 May 2025.

I hand down the judgment.

CRUTCHFIELD J

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

JOHANNESBURG

Date of the hearing:

20 May 2025

Date of judgment:

23 May 2025

[1] Road Traffic Management Corporation v Tasmina (Pty) Ltd 2021 (1) SA 589 (CC) (4 August 2020).