Tinashe v University of Limpopo (Turfloop Campus) (9938/2022) [2023] ZALMPPHC 57 (28 July 2023)

Tinashe v University of Limpopo (Turfloop Campus) (9938/2022) [2023] ZALMPPHC 57 (28 July 2023)

The court found that the applicant's affidavits were not properly commissioned as required by regulation 3(1) of the Regulations Governing the Administering of Oaths and Affirmations. The rationale in Knuttel NO v Bhana, which allowed remote commissioning in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, was held not to apply to the applicant's circumstances, which involved financial constraints and caring for a sick parent. These reasons were not deemed extra-ordinary or exceptional. The court further held that the applicant, as a Zimbabwean citizen, should have availed herself of the commissioning process at the South African Embassy in Zimbabwe, as provided for in section 8 of the Justices of...

Citation
[2023] ZALMPPHC 57
Parties
Applicant: Madaure Jacqueline Tinashe; Respondent: University of Limpopo (Turfloop Campus)
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 July 2023
Case Number
9938/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
M S Monene
Legal Topics
Commissioning of Affidavits, Substantial Compliance, Internal Remedies, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Commissioning of Affidavits Substantial Compliance Internal Remedies Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madaure Jacqueline Tinashe

Applicant

University of Limpopo (Turfloop Campus)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's founding and replying affidavits were properly commissioned in accordance with regulation 3(1) of the Regulations Governing the Administering of Oaths and Affirmations.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's failure to exhaust internal remedies should be condoned by the court.
  3. 3 Whether the rationale in Knuttel NO v Bhana regarding remote commissioning applies to the applicant's circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's affidavits were not properly commissioned as required by regulation 3(1) of the Regulations Governing the Administering of Oaths and Affirmations. The rationale in Knuttel NO v Bhana, which allowed remote commissioning in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, was held not to apply to the applicant's circumstances, which involved financial constraints and caring for a sick parent. These reasons were not deemed extra-ordinary or exceptional. The court further held that the applicant, as a Zimbabwean citizen, should have availed herself of the commissioning process at the South African Embassy in Zimbabwe, as provided for in section 8 of the Justices of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The point in limine regarding non-compliance with the Regulations Governing the Administering of Oaths and Affirmations is upheld.
  • The application is dismissed with costs.