Minister of Home Affairs v Maboho

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Makhafola J
• Court: Limpopo Local Division, Thohoyandu
• Citation: 2011 JDR 1013 (LT)
• Docket Number: 833-1128/2007

Makhafola, J

INTRODUCTION

[1]

The Maboho case with other 117 related cases is one of other classical cases where the history thereof succinctly depicts the attitude and inclination of an attorney handling a litigant's case by a conduct courting the court's disapproval. This judgment relates to applications for leave to

2011 JDR 1013 p2

Makhafola, J

appeal in the main applications and subsequent interlocutory applications demonstrating the sustenance of resistance to bring the matters to finality.

[2]

SUMMARY BACKGROUND

The main case dates back to 2007 when the case of Maboho Tsireledzo under case no: 833/2007 was filed with the Registrar of this court on 26/10/2007 and subsequently the other 117 related cases. Notice of intention to oppose was served on the applicants' attorneys on the 15/11/2007 at 08h56 and it was filed with the Registrar on 16/11/2007.

On 05 November 2009 the applications were argued for the first time in court. The respondent's case was argued solely on the heads of argument handed to court during the hearing, and on the applicants' attorney just before the hearing started. No satisfactory explanation was advanced for such a conduct by the respondent's legal team.

Vide: MAKUWA V POSLSON 2007 (3) SA 84 (TPD) at page 88 paragraph [12].

The respondent had not filed any answering affidavit upon which the heads of argument could be

2011 JDR 1013 p3

Makhafola, J

based. The case of the respondent was not placed before the court. The court had to consider the launching papers without being afforded an opportunity to hear the side of the respondent to the dispute.

The respondent's heads of argument were actually couched in a way that had dealt with the points of law without complying with the required notice in terms of Rule 6(5)(d) (iii). The said heads of argument having been served on the applicants' attorney as stated hereinbefore, the court had to postpone the hearing to 09 November 2009. The respondent did not comply with the Practice Directive of this Division. The Practice Notice was not filed as required.

Vide: MAKUWA V POSLSON 2007 (3) SA 84 (TPD) at page 86 paragraph [1] B.

I must add that the applicants had also not filed the heads of arguments apparently because of lack of opposing papers and because the applications were placed on the unopposed motion roll.

The matter was postponed in order that it may be placed on the opposed motion roll. This was occasioned solely by the surprise opposing

2011 JDR 1013 p4

Makhafola, J

appearance of the respondent's legal team at the hearing and the handing in court of the respondent's heads of argument.

On 09 November 2009 the court made an order against the respondent without giving its reasons but reserved its judgment. The order was not given in a manner requiring an application in terms of Rule 49 (1)(c) because the reasons were reserved to be given at a later stage.

Whilst the reasons were being typed to be given at a later stage, the respondent brought an application in terms of Rule 49 (1)(c) which was dismissed for lack of basis.

Upon receipt of the application in terms of Rule 49 (1)(c) the applicants issued a notice in terms of Rule 30. The respondent did not react to this notice.

The applicants also applied in terms of Rule 49 (11) which was dismissed by the court for being premature because the respondent had not noted any appeal or application for leave to appeal.

2011 JDR 1013 p5

Makhafola...