Rampagane N.O and Others v Master of the High Court Mafikeng and Others (UM20/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 241 (18 September 2024)

Rampagane N.O and Others v Master of the High Court Mafikeng and Others (UM20/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 241 (18 September 2024)

The court found that the application lacked the requisite urgency and was not properly before the court for urgent relief. The striking off of the roll was a procedural consequence, not a reflection on the substantive merits of the case. The court emphasized that urgency relates to form, not substance, and that the applicants may re-enroll the matter on proper notice and compliance with the rules. The litigation process must be conducted with decorum and respect for the rule of law, and the parties were directed to address the issues comprehensively in their pleadings for the benefit of the community and the administration of justice. The profitability and proper management of the Trust...

Citation
[2024] ZANWHC 241
Parties
Applicant: Rampagane Molemi Gert (N.O Chairperson); Applicant: Ramasesane Oikanyeng Zacharia (N.O Deputy Chairperson); Applicant: Marumolwa Ester Lesego (N.O Secretary); Applicant: Poleng Bontleeng Granny (N.O Deputy Secretary); Applicant: Gopane Goemegone Harrington (N.O Treasurer); Applicant: Tshabang Sechogela Harrison (N.O Trustee); Applicant: Mosibotsang Reagisang (N.O Trustee); Applicant: Tiro Seabe Petrus (N.O Trustee); Applicant: Mosweu Mphoentle Patricia (N.O Trustee); Applicant: Maribaland Development Trust (IT 54/2010); Respondent: Master of the High Court: Mafikeng; Respondent: Mogomotsi Hendrick Mmutle; Respondent: Joseph Seranyane Ndlovu; Respondent: Kaene Innocent Melomi; Respondent: Kgosimodimo Reginald Kgetsane; Respondent: Lebang Ernest Naitlhoi; Respondent: Batlang Miranda Mokgosi; Respondent: David Tselayabotlhe Molusi; Respondent: Jeffrey Nkarabang Madola; Respondent: Mosimanegape Harold Sepako; Respondent: Lebogang Emmanuel Xaba; Respondent: Gaorabaone Emmanuel Leutlwetse
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2024
Case Number
UM20/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Matter Struck Off Roll for Lack of Urgency; Referred to Opposed Motion Roll
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; matter referred to opposed motion roll for hearing.
Judges
O.Y Dibetso-Bodibe
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Trust Management, Land Restitution, Finality in Litigation
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgency in Motion Proceedings Trust Management Land Restitution Finality in Litigation

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rampagane Molemi Gert (N.O Chairperson)

Applicant

Ramasesane Oikanyeng Zacharia (N.O Deputy Chairperson)

Applicant

Marumolwa Ester Lesego (N.O Secretary)

Applicant

Poleng Bontleeng Granny (N.O Deputy Secretary)

Applicant

Gopane Goemegone Harrington (N.O Treasurer)

Applicant

Tshabang Sechogela Harrison (N.O Trustee)

Applicant

Mosibotsang Reagisang (N.O Trustee)

Applicant

Tiro Seabe Petrus (N.O Trustee)

Applicant

Mosweu Mphoentle Patricia (N.O Trustee)

Applicant

Maribaland Development Trust (IT 54/2010)

Applicant

Master of the High Court: Mafikeng

Respondent

Mogomotsi Hendrick Mmutle

Respondent

Joseph Seranyane Ndlovu

Respondent

Kaene Innocent Melomi

Respondent

Kgosimodimo Reginald Kgetsane

Respondent

Lebang Ernest Naitlhoi

Respondent

Batlang Miranda Mokgosi

Respondent

David Tselayabotlhe Molusi

Respondent

Jeffrey Nkarabang Madola

Respondent

Mosimanegape Harold Sepako

Respondent

Lebogang Emmanuel Xaba

Respondent

Gaorabaone Emmanuel Leutlwetse

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Matter Struck Off Roll for Lack of Urgency; Referred to Opposed Motion Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was urgent and warranted immediate relief.
  2. 2 Whether the parties complied with the rules of court in bringing the application.
  3. 3 How the litigation process should proceed for just and expeditious resolution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application lacked the requisite urgency and was not properly before the court for urgent relief. The striking off of the roll was a procedural consequence, not a reflection on the substantive merits of the case. The court emphasized that urgency relates to form, not substance, and that the applicants may re-enroll the matter on proper notice and compliance with the rules. The litigation process must be conducted with decorum and respect for the rule of law, and the parties were directed to address the issues comprehensively in their pleadings for the benefit of the community and the administration of justice. The profitability and proper management of the Trust...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; matter referred to opposed motion roll for hearing.

Orders

  • The matter is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
  • Costs are reserved.