About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPPHC 301
|
|
UnchainedYouth NPC and Others v Chauke [2023] ZAGPPHC 301; B1443/2023 (28 April 2023)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: B1443/2023
In
the matter between:
UNCHAINEDYOUTH
NPC
1
ST
APPLICANT
DENNIS
JACKIE CHAUKE
2
ND
APPLICANT
MAVIS
SEIPATI MOELA
3
RD
APPLICANT
And
ANTOINETTE
NKHESANI CHAUKE
RESPONDENT
ORDER
AFTER
HAVING perused the papers filed, and considered the submissions made
by the second applicant and counsel for the respondent,
the following
order is granted:
1.
The matter is heard as one of urgency, and
non-compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court with regard to time
limits and form of
service is condoned;
2.
The respondent is to return the old and new
lockable cabinets containing the patient’s files, the white
reception desk, the
2 bar heater, the two extension cords, two
multiplugs, the bar fridge, the stationary, and the posters referred
to in paragraphs
45.1, 45.3, 45.5. 45.6 and 45.7 of the founding
affidavit, to the Chairperson of the first applicant’s Board,
or his nominee,
who is authorised to accept it, before or on
Thursday, 4 May 2023.
3.
The remaining issues, including the factual
dispute as to whether the respondent removed certain laptops and a
wifi router, are
separated and postponed
sine
die
, to be dealt with in the ordinary motion
court. The applicants may amplify their papers within 10 court days
from the date of this
order, and the respondent may amplify her
papers within 10 days after receipt of the applicants’
amplified papers, alternatively
within 10 days from the last day on
which the applicants could file amplified papers;
4.
The respondent is to pay the costs of the
application.
REASONS
[1]
The aspects of the relief sought that relate to
the first applicant’s functioning in terms of the Prevention of
and Treatment
for Substance Abuse Act, 70 of 2008, are urgent. The
marital discord and acrimony between the second applicant and the
respondent
negatively influence their functioning as directors of the
first applicant.
[2]
In light of the factual disputes that exist, and
the fact that the relief sought is final in nature, the well-known
Plascon Evans
–test
find application. Thus, the court only orders the return of the
articles the respondent acknowledged she took. The
Board may
authorise that a criminal charge of theft be instituted in order to
determine the whereabouts of the property that the
respondent does
not take responsibility for.
[3]
The second applicant may approach the Domestic
Violence Court in the event that he feels threatened by the
respondent’s behaviour.
[4]
Although the Chairperson of the first applicant’s
Board is not a party to the proceedings, the Board is ultimately the
first
applicant’s custodian. The property of the first
applicant that the respondent took should be returned to the
Chairperson
of the Board. The Board will deal with the property in
accordance with its powers and responsibilities.
[5]
The respondent is to pay the costs of this
application as she acknowledged that the property is in her
possession, and tenders it
back to the applicants, but has to date
failed to make the necessary arrangements for its return.
E van der Schyff
Judge of the High
Court
28 April 2023