Matsaung and another v Matsaung and others

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Kganyago J
• Judgment Date: 30 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2506/2022
• Hearing Date: 28 June 2022
• Court: Limpopo Division, Polokwane

Kganyago J:

[1]

On 24th May 2022 the applicants approached this court on urgent basis wherein they appeared before Naude AJ and obtained an order wherein the fourth respondent was ordered to unfreeze several bank accounts of the second applicant, together with other orders related to the applicants’ application. The order was duly served on the fourth respondent. However, the fourth respondent has failed to comply with the court order, and the applicants have launched a contempt of court application on urgent basis against the fourth respondent.

2023 JDR 2365 p2

Kganyago J

[2]

The fourth respondent is opposing the applicants’ contempt of court application. The fourth respondent has also filed a Rule 7 notice challenging the authority of the first applicant to represent the second applicant, and also the applicants’ attorney’s authority to represent the second applicant as its attorneys of record. In reply to the fourth respondent’s Rule 7 notice, the applicants have attached copy of a resolution by Bakone Ba-Mamahule Matsaung Royal Family, and copy of a power of attorney signed by the first applicant nominating Elliot Attorneys to represent him (first applicant).

[3]

The fourth respondent in its answering affidavit has raised several points in limine which are (i) that the applicants have failed to comply with Rule 41A; (ii) there is no urgency in the application; (iii) the first applicant lacks authority to bring the application on behalf of the second applicant; (iv) the applicants have inexcusably failed to cite and join Mmamaele Georgina Matsaung (who claims to be the Regent) and a representative of the Royal Family; (v) that the order of 24th May 2022 is both incomplete and incapable of being implemented because of the controversy between the applicants and first to third respondents regarding the identity of the current chairperson of Mamahule Traditional Authority, (vi) that the applicants are seeking final relief in their application, yet they failed to make out a clear case in their founding affidavit; and (vii) that the applicants pursue the application for a final relief notwithstanding the presence of foreseeable (reasonable and actual) material disputes of fact.

[4]

When the parties appeared in court on 28th June 2022, they agreed to first argue the fourth respondent’s point in limine regarding the applicants’ alleged lack of locus standi to bring this application. Counsel for the fourth respondent had submitted that the full court of this division in the appeal judgment under case number HCAA15/2021 heard on 10th June 2022 and electronically circulated on 15th June 2022 has found that second applicant had not yet been recognised by the Premier of Limpopo and therefore lacks locus standi to institute and prosecute action against the appellants in the appeal case. That the first applicant brings the current application on the basis of an entity that is non-existing. Further that as per the applicants’ resolution attached to their Rule 7 reply, the said resolution refers to the first applicant been duly appointed as a senior traditional leader of Bakone Ba-Mamahule

2023 JDR 2365 p3

Kganyago J

Ga-Matsaung of the Mamahule Community to represent the Mamahule Traditional Authority in terms of...