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
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 43
|
|
Chauke v Kingdom of Netherlands and Others (62092020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 43 (28 January 2021)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 62092020
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/ NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED. YES
28 January 2021
In
the matter between:
DAVID
CHAUKE
Plaintiff
and
THE KINGDOM
OF THE NETHERLANDS
First
Defendant
THE MINISTER
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Second
Defendant
THE CEO OF
EMIRATES AIRLINES
Third
Defendant
THE CEO OF
PENTRAVEL AGENCY
Fourth Defendant
THE CEO OF
NEDBANK
Fifth
Defendant
THE MINISTER
OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION
Sixth
Defendant
THE
PRESIDENT OF THE REPULIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Seventh
Defendant
THE MINISTER
OF FINANCE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Eighth
Respondent
THE MINISTER
OF POLICE OF THE REPULBIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Ninth
Defendant
THE MINISTER
OF TRANSPORT FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Tenth
Defendant
THE GOVERNOR
OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK
Eleventh
Defendant
THE CEO OF
SANRAL
Twelfth
Defendant
THE BANKING
ASSOCIATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Thirteenth
Defendant
THE MINISTER
OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Fourteenth
Defendant
THE NATIONAL
CREDIT REGULATOR OF SOUTH AFRICA
Fifteenth
Defendant
THE MINISTER
OF VALUATIONS- PLANNING AND MONITORING IN THE PRESIDENCY
Sixteenth
Defendant
THE
OMBUDSMAN FOR BANKING SERVICES FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Seventeenth
Defendant
THE MINISTER
OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Eighteenth
Defendant
HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Nineteenth
Defendant
THE LEGAL
PRACTICE COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Twentieth
Defendant
MASHEGO
ATTORNEYS INCORPORATED
Twenty
First Defendant
THEMBA
NGOBENI ATTORNEYS
Twenty
Second Defendant
EVANS
MATHEBULA
Twenty
Third Defendant
RADEBE
ATTORNEYS INCORPORATED
Twenty
Fourth Defendant
GOODMAN
MHLANGA
Twenty
Fifth Defendant
WITS LEGAL
CLINIC
Twenty
Sixth Defendant
PROFESSOR
CHARLES JORDI
Twenty
Seventh Defendant
THE JUDICIAL
SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUH AFRICA
Twenty
Eighth Defendant
THE
JOHANNESBURG SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES
Twenty
Ninth Defendant
ADVOCATE
TSHEPO NYANDENI
Thirtieth
Defendant
MACINTYRE
VAN DER POST INC.
Thirty
First Defendant
CEO OF VFSS
GLOBAL AGENCY
Thirty
Second Defendant
HLONGA
INCORPORATED ATTORNEYS
Thirty
Third Defendant
MINISTER OF
JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Thirty
Fourth Defendant
_________________________________________________________________________
JUDGEMENT
Because
of the current pandemic, argument in this case was heard by means of
video conferencing technologies. I am the author of
this judgment and
prepared it myself. It will be handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties’ representatives
by way of
electronic mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this
matter on the electronic application called Caselines.
The date on
which this judgment is handed down shall be deemed to be 28 January
2021.
AVVAKOUMIDES
AJ
1.
On 5 January 2021 I handed down judgment in this case upholding
the
Eleventh Defendant’s exception against the Plaintiff’s
action. I inadvertently did not include in the judgment
that the
State Attorney had briefed counsel on behalf of the Second, Fifth,
Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth,
Eighteenth and Thirty Fourth Defendants (the State Defendants) in a
similar exception against the Plaintiff’s action based
on the
same grounds. This was an obvious error, and the purpose of this
judgment is to rectify the error in terms of rule 42.
2.
The State Defendants’ exception is in line with
that of the
Eleventh Defendant and for the same reasons contained in the main
judgment, their exception stands to be upheld. I
accordingly rectify
the main judgment to include the State Defendants exception.
3.
The Eleventh Defendant and State Defendants argued that
the usual
relief should exceptions be upheld is to afford the Plaintiff an
opportunity to amend. However, the summons filed
is so
materially at odds with rule 18 that it would defeat the purpose of
rule 23 to afford the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend.
The
Eleventh Defendant and State Defendants submitted that the proper
relief would be to uphold the exceptions and to grant costs
against
the Plaintiff. I am inclined to agree.
4.
The order for costs sought by the Eleventh Defendant
and State
Defendants against the Plaintiff is because, on a cursory glance at
the incomprehensible verbiage filed, indicates that
the Plaintiff has
sought the same relief, against the same parties since 2009, despite
having matters dismissed in previous courts.
Furthermore, the
conduct by the Plaintiff is vexatious, because he has launched
multiple notices and documents which have no grounding
in rules and
have culminated in substantial escalation of costs for the
Defendants.
5.
Under the circumstances, the main judgment of 5 January
2021 is
hereby amended as follows:
5.1
The Eleventh Defendants’, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Eighteenth and Thirty
Fourth Defendants’ (the State Defendants) exception is
upheld.
5.2
The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the Eleventh Defendants’
and
the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth,
Sixteenth, Eighteenth and Thirty Fourth Defendants (the
State
Defendants) costs.
G.T.
AVVAKOUMIDES
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Representation
for parties:
On behalf of
Plaintiff:
D Chauke (in person)
On behalf of
Eleventh Defendant:
SJ Martin
Instructed
by:
Tshisevhi Gwana Ratshimbilani
Inc.
On behalf of
the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth,
Sixteenth, Eighteenth and Thirty Fourth Defendants
(the State
Defendants)
M.M Mojapelo and G.M. Mamabolo
Instructed
by:
State Attorney