S.A.M obo B.H.G.M. and B.K.A.B v Road Accident Fund (021145/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1876 (2 November 2023)

S.A.M obo B.H.G.M. and B.K.A.B v Road Accident Fund (021145/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1876 (2 November 2023)

The court found that none of the supplementary affidavits filed by the applicant complied with the Regulations governing the commissioning of affidavits. The defects included lack of initials on each page, discrepancies in dates and places of commissioning, and amendments made ex post facto, which indicated that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1876
Parties
Applicant: S.A.M obo B.H.G.M. and B.K.A.B; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2023
Case Number
021145/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Appointment of Curator Ad Litem; Unopposed Motion
Outcome
The matter was removed from the roll pending the filing of a valid, commissioned supplementary affidavit or an explanatory affidavit from the commissioner of oaths. Costs are to be costs in the main action.
Judges
K Strydom
Legal Topics
Commissioning of Affidavits, Curator Ad Litem, Substantial Compliance, Children Rights
Civil Procedure Commissioning of Affidavits Curator Ad Litem Substantial Compliance Children Rights

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.A.M obo B.H.G.M. and B.K.A.B

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Appointment of Curator Ad Litem; Unopposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supplementary affidavits filed in support of the application for appointment of a curator ad litem comply with the Regulations governing affidavits.
  2. 2 Whether the court can exercise its discretion to accept affidavits that do not strictly comply with the Regulations, based on substantial compliance.
  3. 3 Whether the rights of minor children are prejudiced by formalistic errors in the commissioning of affidavits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that none of the supplementary affidavits filed by the applicant complied with the Regulations governing the commissioning of affidavits. The defects included lack of initials on each page, discrepancies in dates and places of commissioning, and amendments made ex post facto, which indicated that the affidavits were not properly deposed to in the presence of the commissioner of oaths. The court held that, in the absence of facts proving substantial compliance, it could not exercise its discretion to admit the affidavits. However, the court emphasized that the rights of the minor children should not be prejudiced by formalistic errors and granted the applicant an...

Court Disposition

The matter was removed from the roll pending the filing of a valid, commissioned supplementary affidavit or an explanatory affidavit from the commissioner of oaths. Costs are to be costs in the main action.

Orders

  • The matter is removed from the roll.
  • The applicant is to file a valid, commissioned, supplementary affidavit in support of the application for the appointment of the curator ad litem.