Ramatsetse-Moloi v Shiremane and Others (2025-110223) [2025] ZAGPPHC 770 (1 August 2025)

Ramatsetse-Moloi v Shiremane and Others (2025-110223) [2025] ZAGPPHC 770 (1 August 2025)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient information regarding when she became aware of the appointment of the first respondent as executrix and did not explain the circumstances under which she obtained a subsequent appointment. The applicant's claims of urgency were based on general and unsubstantiated allegations of financial harm and asset dissipation, which did not meet the threshold for urgent relief. The existence of two letters of executorship and the unresolved issue of the customary law marriage further complicated the matter, making it unsuitable for determination in motion proceedings. Both the applicant and the respondents failed to demonstrate that...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 770
Parties
Applicant: Yvonne Kholofelo Ramatsetse-Moloi; Respondent: Mpuna Ellen Shiremane; Respondent: Paballo Mahlosane Moloi; Respondent: Companies and Intellectual Property Commission; Respondent: Department of Trade and Industry; Respondent: The Master of the High Court
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2025
Case Number
2025-110223
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. Each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Customary Law Marriage, Letters of Executorship, Striking From the Roll
Civil Procedure Family and Children Urgency in Motion Proceedings Customary Law Marriage Letters of Executorship Striking From the Roll

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yvonne Kholofelo Ramatsetse-Moloi

Applicant

Mpuna Ellen Shiremane

Respondent

Paballo Mahlosane Moloi

Respondent

Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Department of Trade and Industry

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant made out a case for the matter to be heard as an urgent application.
  2. 2 Whether the existence of two letters of executorship in the same estate affects the proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant and respondents will suffer irreparable harm if the matter is not heard urgently.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient information regarding when she became aware of the appointment of the first respondent as executrix and did not explain the circumstances under which she obtained a subsequent appointment. The applicant's claims of urgency were based on general and unsubstantiated allegations of financial harm and asset dissipation, which did not meet the threshold for urgent relief. The existence of two letters of executorship and the unresolved issue of the customary law marriage further complicated the matter, making it unsuitable for determination in motion proceedings. Both the applicant and the respondents failed to demonstrate that...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. Each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll.
  • Each party is responsible for its own costs.