About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZANCHC 26
|
|
Jantjie and Others v Jantjie and Others (1317/2019) [2021] ZANCHC 26 (4 June 2021)
IN
THE HIGH
COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTHERN
CAPE DIVISION,
KIMBERLEY
Case
No:
1317/2019
Heard:
12/03/2021
Delivered
on:
04/06/2021
In
the matter between:
MOTHEO
JANTJIE
First
Applicant
BATLHAPING
BA PHUDUHUTSW ANA (JANTJIE)
ROYAL
FAMILY
Second
Applicant
TLAMELO
MATTHEWS LEKWA
Third
Applicant
GAOTIMANWE
TIMOTHY
LEKWA
Fourth
Applicant
OLEHILE
MICHAEL BODUMELE
Fifth
Applicant
KGOPISHO
SETUNGWANE
Sixth
Applicant
DMANNER
Seventh
Applicant
and
KGOSIENEWANG
EMMANUEL
JANTJIE
First
Respondent
BA-GA
JANJIE
TRADITIONAL
COUNCIL
MANYEDING
Second
Respondent
PREMIER
OF THE NORTHERN
CAPE
Third
Respondent
CHAIRPERSON:
NC HOUSE OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS
Fourth
Respondent
MEC:
CO OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE, HUMAN
SETTLEMENT
AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS, NC PROVINCE
Fifth
Respondent
THE
COMMISSION ON TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP
DISPUTES
AND
CLAIMS
Sixth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mamosebo
J
[1]
The application is for the enforcement
of a court order granted by Kgomo
JP
on 25 October 2013 in the following terms:
"It
is ordered
that (by agreement)
1.
The applicants and respondents
agree to lodge a dispute in terms of section
59 of the Northern Cape
Traditional Leadership Governance and House of Traditional Leaders
Act, 2 of 2007, within 90 days from date
hereof
2.
Pending the finalisation of the
above dispute, the respondents agree not to:
2.1
Publicly
state
that the first
applicant
[Mr Motheo
Jantjie] is not the
legitimate son of the late Mr
Pico Patrick Jantjie;
2.2
Publicly state that [Mr Motheo
Jantjie] is not the legitimate Chief of
the Batlhaping Ba-Ga Jantjie
Tribe;
2.3
Do anything which obstructs,
impedes, disrupts or interferes with the
work activities and/or powers of
the applicants;
2.4
Threaten or intimidates or harass
any person who carries [out] work
on behalf of the applicants
and/or Batlhaping Ba Ga Jantjie Tribe;
2.5
Threaten or intimidate or harass
any member of [Mr MotheoJantjie 's] family;
2.6
Allocate
sites
to people within the jurisdiction of
the applicants.
3.
Each
party pays its own costs.
"
[2]
The applicants now seek the following
relief in the Notice of Motion:
2.1
That the third to sixth respondents
(Premier of the Northern Cape; Chairperson of the Northern Cape House
of Traditional Leaders;
MEC:
Cooperative Governance, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs
(COGTA) and The Commission of Traditional Leadership Disputes
and
Claims) must take all reasonable steps to process the dispute that
was lodged in terms of paragraph 1 of the court order under
Case
Number 1234/2013, and referred to the Premier of the Northern Cape
Province for referral to the Commission on Traditional Leadership
Disputes and Claims in terms of s 25(2)(a) of the Traditional
Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment
Act of 2003.
2.2
That the third to sixth respondents
advise the applicants in writing, through their attorney of record,
within 15 court days from
the date of this order, of the steps they
have taken to process the dispute.
2.3
To the extent necessary, that the first
and second respondents be ordered to lodge a dispute in terms of the
order within 10 court
days from the date of this order.
2.4
That any respondent who opposes this
application be ordered to pay the costs of the applicants on an
attorney and client scale.
Only
the first and second respondents oppose this application. The
remainder filed Notices to abide the decision of the Court.
Background
[3]
Mr Babuseng, for the applicants,
informed Court that the enforcement of the current relief is sought
only against the first respondent
(Mr Kgosienewang Emmanuel Jantjie),
and the second respondent (Ba-Ga Jantjie Traditional Council
Manyeding). Counsel intimated that
there has been non-compliance by
the respondents
with
the order in that they failed to lodge a dispute and that this Court
must now order them to lodge it within 10 days of this order.
[4]
What seems incomprehensible is that if
the applicants, through Mr Thato
Joseph
Jantjie (Thato), have already referred the dispute to the Premier why
would the respondents also need to refer the same dispute
again? It
is unclear from the terms of the
agreement whether the parties had to refer the dispute jointly or
separately acting independently
from each other.
[5]
Section 59 falls under the head:
Commission or committee of inquiry
into disputes and other matters relevant to Traditional Leadership of
traditional communities and
powers of the Premier
followin
g
commission's
re
p
ort.
It stipulates:
"(1)
The Premier may appoint
a
commission or
a
committee,
in
terms
of provincial legislation to
inquire into and submit a report to him or her in regard
to-
(a)
any dispute
in
connection with
the
recognition
of
a
senior
traditional
leader or the appointm
e
nt
of a headman or headwoman.
(b)
the
question
as
to
whether
any
person recognis
e
d
as
senior
traditional
leader
or confirmed as headman or headwoman-
(iii)
is the rightful incumbent of the
office of senior traditional leader
or headman or headwoman as the
case may
be;
(c)
any
other
matter
which
the
Premier may deem necessary.
(2)
(a) At any inquiry by a
commission
referred
to
in subsection
(1),
representations
may
be
made
and
evidence
ma
y
be presented to the
commission
either personally or otherwise by
a senior traditional
leader
or
headman or headwoman in relation to
whom
the inquiry is held, and on
behalf of
any
member
of the traditional community in
question
and where applicable, by or on
behalf of the person claiming
to
be
entitled
to
traditional leadership as the case may be;
(b)
A failure or refusal on the part
of any person referr
e
d
to in paragraph (a)
to
attend an inquiry held by the
commission
or to
make
any
representations
or
give evidence
in
the course of
the
proceedings
before
the
commission,
does not in any
way
invalidate the proceedings
or
the findings of the
commission.
(3)
The
commission
must as soon
as
reasonably practicabl
e,
after the conclusion of its
inquiry, submit to the Premier its report, containing its findings
and recommendations.
(4)
The Premier may, after having
considered the report, findings and recommendations of the commission
-
(a)
settle
or decide the dispute in
such
manner as he or
she
deems fair and
equitable
and
for that purpose
issue
a
directive as he or
she
deems
fit;
(b)
in
the
case of
a
senior
traditional leader
,
headman
or headwoman
revoke
his
or her recognition as such; or
(c)
in the circumstances
contemplated
in paragraph (b) of this
subsection, depose the senior traditional leader, headman or
headwoman
concerned
as
the case may be, and, for the purposes of paragraph (b)
of
this subsection, recognise any other member of the particular
traditional community qualified for that purpose as the senior
traditional
leader
or headman or headwoman
respectively.
"
[6]
Para
14 of the
founding
affidavit
reads:
"I
am advised
that
the
merits of the application
under
Case
Number
1234/2013 were not considered
by the court and
the parties agreed
to the above order for the
purpose of a proper investigation
to
be done to
resolve
the
disputes
relating
to
who is the rightful and
legitimate
Chief
of the Batlhaping
Ba-Ga
Jantjie.
"
[7]
At
the heart of this dispute and in substantiation to para 14 of the
founding affidavit, the question raised by the first applicant
is
whether the first respondent, Kgosienewang Emmanuel Jantjie, is the
son of Pico Patrick
Jantjie,
and if so, who, between the late Thato Jantjie,
(the
first applicant's
father)
and
the
first
respondent,
was
the
eldest
son for purposes of
chieftaincy?
[8]
It is unclear why Mr Babuseng sought an
enforcement order only against
the
first and second respondents, a deviation from what appears in the
Notice of Motion, which seeks an order for the Premier, Chairperson
of the House of Traditional Leaders, MEC, and the Commission, to
furnish them with feedback on steps they have taken to resolve their
dispute and to furnish such feedback within ten (10) days of this
Court's order.
[9]
It is imperative for parties to exhaust
internal remedies before approaching the Court, unless exceptional
circumstances exist. This
we find in
s 21
of the
Traditional
Leadership and Governance Framework Act, 41 of 2003
, which
stipulates:
"Dispute
and claim resolution
(l)(a) Whenever a dispute or claim
concerning customary law or customs arises between or within
traditional communities or other customary
institutions on a matter
arising from the
implementation
of this Act, members of such a community and traditional leaders
within the traditional community or customary institution
concerned
must seek to resolve the dispute or claim internally and in
accordance with customs before such dispute or claim may be
referred
to the Commission.
(b)
If
a
dispute or claim cannot be resolved in terms of paragraph (a),
subsection (2) applies.
(2)(a) A dispute or claim referred to in
subsection (1) that cannot be resolved as provided for in that
subsection must be referred
to the relevant provincial house of
traditional leaders, which house must seek to resolve the dispute or
claim in accordance with
the internal rules and procedures.
(b)
If
a
provincial
house
of traditional
leaders
is
unable
to
resolve
a
dispute or claim as provided for in
paragraph (a), the dispute or
claim must be referred to the
Premier of the Province concerned,
who must resolve the dispute or
claim after having consulted
-
(i)
the parties to the dispute or
claim; and
(ii)
the provincial
house of traditional
leaders
concerned.
(c)
A dispute or claim that cannot be
resolved as provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) must be referred
to the Commission.
(3) Where a
dispute or claim contemplated in subsection (1) has not been resolved
as provided for in
this section, the dispute or claim must be
referred
to
the Commission.
"
[10]
The exhaustion of internal remedies has also been dealt with by the
Constitutional Court in
Koyabe v
Minister of Home Affairs
[2009] ZACC
23
;
2010 (4) SA 327
(CC);
2009 (12) BCLR 1192
(CC) at 340 paras 34 -
40; and
Nichol
v Registrar
of
Pension
Funds
[2005] ZASCA 97
;
2008 (1) SA
383
(SCA) at 389 para 15.
[11]
Unquestionably, the following
facts or factors seem to be common
cause or acceptable or probable:
11.1
The dispute of who the rightful Chief of
the Batlhaping Ba-Ga Phuduhutswana
is
dates back to 2009.
11.2
Various community meetings were held in
an effort to have the dispute amicably resolved, an assertion
admitted by the First Respondent
(Kgosienewang) in his answering
affidavit.
11.3
The dispute was brought to the attention
of the Northern Cape House of Traditional Leaders and the Department
of Cooperative Governance
Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs in
2010 but remained unresolved.
11.4
On 24 January 2014, Mathibane Mere
Attorneys, for the applicants, addressed a "without prejudice"
letter marked "J4"
to
the
Northern Cape Provincial House of Traditional Leaders in which a
chronology of the attempts made to resolve the matter was outlined
followed by a request to have the dispute resolved in terms of the
Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework
Act, 41 of 2003
.
11.5
There were various correspondences
addressed to the Department of Cooperative Governance Human
Settlement and Traditional Affairs
during 2010 pertaining to the
delays in having the dispute amicably resolved;
11.6
On 23 March 2012 in a meeting with the
former Premier of the Northern Cape Provincial Government, Ms Sylvia
Lucas, as evinced on the
"J7'', a resolution was taken that Mr
Thato Joseph
Jantjie,
who is not cited as a party, must lodge a dispute with COGTA on
behalf of the applicants.
11.7
In August 2012 Thato duly addressed the
dispute to Mr Pholoholo, a Director in COGTA. The dispute stubbornly
persisted.
[12]
On 02 February 2015 a letter marked "J
14" was written under the auspices
of the Office of the Premier and
addressed to Mathibane Mere Attorneys, which reads:
"RE:
DISPUTE CHIEFTAINSHIP OF THE BATLHAPING BA GA JANTJIE: THATO JOSEPH
JANTJIEIKGOSIENEWANG EMMANUEL JANTJIE
Your
letter dated 21 January 2015 refers.
The
Provincial House will most probably deal with this matter on or
before 15 February 2015.
In
the interim kindly furnish
us
with
the
particulars
of Mr TJ Jantjie
's
substitute. Yours
sincerely
PN
Mafungo
Chief
State Law Adviser.
"
[13]
Mathibane Mere Attorneys then responded
to the Premier on 09 February 2015 in a letter marked "J13"
as follows:
"RE:
DISPUTE CHIEFTAINSHIP OF THE BATLHAPING BA GA JANTJIE:
THATO
JOSEPH
JANTJIE/KGOSIENEWANG
EMMANUEL
JANTJIE
The
above matter and
your
letter
dated 02 February 2015 refers.
The
writer
notes
the contents
of
your
aforesaid
letter with much of appreciation
from my client as it indicates the commitment on
your
part to resolve this long
outstanding dispute.
Please
be informed
that
the
substitute to Mr TJ Jantjie is his eldest son Motheo Jantjie identity
no ....
[1]
.
residing at his parental home [at] Manyeding Village, Kuruman
.
Attached
is
the ID copy.
Further
that you will advice us in time
if
there
is any other requirement
/
participation from our part that
is required as you indicated that the house will commence with this
matter on 15 February 2015
.
Trust
the above is in order.
Mathibane
Mere Attorneys
Per
R Mere"
[14]
On 14 July 2015, the Premier, Ms SE
Lucas, addressed letter "Jl5" to
Mathibane Mere Attorneys under the same
head as follows:
"The
above matter refers.
Kindly
be advised that the Northern Cape Provincial House of Traditional
Leaders has referred this matter back to me and advised that
it be
referred to the Commission in terms of Section 25(2)(a) of the
Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Act
of
2003.
Based
on the above, you are hereby requested to please advise
your
clients accordingly.
Yours
sincerely. Mrs SE Lucas
Premier:
Northern
Cape
Province
"
[15]
This culminated in the application
before me whereby the applicants seek
the enforcement
of para 1 of the order by Kgomo JP.
[16]
Section 25 (1) and (2)(a)(iii) of the
Framework
Act
provides:
"Functions
of Commission
(1)
The Commission
operates
nationally in plenary and
provincially in committees and has authority to investigate and make
recommendations on any traditional
leadership dispute and claim
contemplated
in
subsection
(2).
(2)
(a) The Commission has authority
to investigate and make recommendations on
-
(iii)
a traditional leadership position where the title or right of
the incumbent
is
contested.
"
[17]
Whether the applicants followed s 59 of
the Northern Cape Traditional Leadership Governance Act, 2007 or the
Legal Framework Act,
2003, does not expunge the inaction displayed by
the Office of the Premier. In
Sigcau
v President of the Republic of South Africa
[2013]
ZACC 18
;
2013 (9) BCLR 1091
(CC) at para 15 the Constitutional Court
held:
"[15]
.
.[T]he
institution of traditional
leadership
and
the
determination
of who should hold positions of
traditional leadership have important constitutional dimensions
.
"
[18]
Musi
AJ,
in
the
ConCourt, made
the
following
poignant
remarks
in
Tshivulana
Royal Family
v Netshivhulana
[2016] ZACC 47
at para 27:
"[27]
It is in the interests of justice that disputes pertaining to
traditional leadership be resolved with certainty and clarity
in
order to maintain stability.
"
[19]
The Framework Act has evidently created
a framework within which provinces may regulate their own traditional
affairs. It is inexplicable
and
inexcusable why the Premier did not on
her own accord invoke the provisions of s 59(1)(b)(iii) of the
Northern Cape Traditional Leadership
Governance Act, 2007, by appointing a
commission or a committee, in terms of the said provincial
legislation to inquire into who the
rightful kgosi has to be. The
appointed body would have furnished her with a report from which
subsections (3) and (4) of Act 2 of
2007 would have followed.
[20]
The Premier could, instead of writing to
the applicants' attorneys advising them to refer the matter to the
commission, have taken
the referral step herself. Section 25(2)(b) of
the Framework Act allows that or does not debar the Premier from
doing so. In fact,
it was her offices' responsibility
to do so.
[21]
On
the
other
hand
Mathibane
Mere
Attorneys
also
failed
to
invoke
s 25(2)(b) of the Framework Act to lodge
a dispute with supporting documentation setting out all the steps
they have taken as well
as the nature of the dispute in order to
facilitate the expeditious finalisation of the dispute.
[22]
Had the role-players meaningfully
invoked the applicable provisions of
the
available legislation, the following course would have been open:
22.1
Referral to the Commission by the
Premier in terms of s 59(3): The Commission would have been required,
as soon as reasonably
practicable,
to submit a report to the Premier with its findings and
recommendations. The Premier would then
dispose of the matter
invoking
s 59(4).
22.2
Referral
to
the Commission
in
terms of s 26 of the Framework
Act
which provides:
â
26
Recommendations of
Commission
(1)
A recommendation of the
Commission is taken with the support of at least two thirds of the
members of the Commission.
(2)
A recommendation of the
Commission must
,
within
two weeks of the recommendation having
been made, be conveyed
to
-
(a)
The President and the Minister
where the position of a king or queen is affected by such a
recommendation; and
(b)
The relevant provincial
government and any other relevant functionary to which the
recommendation of the Commission
applies in accordance with
applicable provincial legislation in so far as the consideration of
th
e
recommendation
does not relate to the recognition or removal of a king or queen in
terms of section 9, 9A or 10.
(3)
The President or other relevant
functionary to whom the recommendations have been conveyed in terms
of subsection (2) must, within
a period of 60 days make a decision on
the recommendation.
(4)
If th
e
President or the relevant
functionary takes the decision that differs with the recommendation
conveyed in terms of subsection (2),
the President or the relevant
functionary as th
e
case
may be must provide written reasons for such decision.
(a)
The Premiers must, on an annual
basis and when requested by the Minister,
provide
the President
and
the Minister
with a
report
on
the
implementation
of
their
decisions
on
the
recommendations of the
Commission.
(c)
A
copy
of
the
report
referred
to
in
paragraph
(a)
must
be
submitted
to the relevant
provincial
house for noting.
"
[23]
The applicants have resorted to
following the Provincial legislation. The
envisaged dispute resolution as
prescribed in s 59 culminates with the decision of the Premier. The
Premier's office is the one that
refers the dispute to the Commission
or committee for an inquiry and upon receipt
of a report from them, and, as soon as
reasonably practicable, may, settle
or
decide the dispute in such manner as he or she deems fair and
equitable and for that purpose issue a directive as he or she deems
fit. It therefore follows that the office of the Premier has not
acted in a manner that is fair and equitable.
[24]
Mr Motloung, for the respondents, argued
that this Court should consider invoking Rule 42(1)(c) of the Uniform
Rules of Court because
there may have been a misapprehension on the
part of both parties by invoking
s
59 of the Provincial
Act.
According
to him this section
presupposes
that
there
has to be a report furnished to the Premier.
Counsel submitted that s 59 has been
incompetently invoked because s 12 (l)(c) of the Framework
Act
is
more appropriate
in
this case. It
provides:
"12
Removal of senior
traditional leaders, headmen or headwomen
(I)
A senior traditional leader, headman or headwoman may be removed from
office on the grounds of-
(c)
wrongful appointment or recognition.
"
[25]
In countering this submission Mr
Babuseng contended that the issue for
determination does not require the
removal of the incumbent headman but whether he is the rightful or
legitimate traditional leader.
I agree.
Section 12 is inapplicable in the
circumstances. It is also my view that on a proper
construction
of s
59,
which
is
a provincial
provision
for resolving traditional
disputes, there was no error common to
both parties in reaching
a
settlement to resolve their dispute. I therefore find that Mr
Motloung cannot be correct to urge me to implement Rule 42(1)(c) to
vary or rescind the order granted by Kgomo JP on 25 October 2013.
[26]
The purpose of making a settlement
agreement an order of court is to enable the party in whose favour it
was granted to enforce it
through execution or contempt proceedings
in the event of non-compliance. See
PL
v YL
2013 (6) SA 28
(ECG) at paras
39 and 40. It must also be borne
in
mind that the applicants have not, sensibly, asked that the
responsible
Premier
be held in contempt of the Court order because there is no suggestion
that the Premier has wilfully or deliberately refused
to carry out
the order of Court or defied it.
See
in this regard the pronouncements
by
Cameron JA (then) in
Fakie NO v CCII
Systems (Pty) Ltd
[2006] ZASCA 52
;
2006 (4) SA 326
(SCA) at 333 para 8 and 9 which need not be quoted.
[27]
I
must mark my displeasure towards Mr Babuseng for his flagrant
disregard for the "Rules Regulating the Proceedings of the
Northern
Cape Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa".
Whereas the applicants' heads were served and filed on 08 December
2020,
the Practice Note was filed out of time, only on 10 March 2021.
Mr Babuseng also indicated that, in his opinion
,
all
portions of the record are relevant for the adjudication of the
application. Not to be outdone Mr Motloung's Practice Notice also
claimed that the whole record was relevant whereas
it
was not
[2]
.
This
application
pertains
to the enforcement of an order of C
ourt
and only documents and affidavits relevant thereto ought to have been
highlighted. These derelictions are unacceptable and must
be
discontinued. See in this regard the admonishment by Harms JA in
Caterham
Car Sales & Coachworks Ltd v Birkin Cars (Pty) and Another
1998
(3) SA (SCA) at 954 para 36 and 37 that finds relevance in this
opposed application:
"[36]
I wish to
say
something
about the practice note. It is required of the
practitioner
who
will argue the appeal to
indicate which parts of the record
in his opinion are not relevant
for the determination of the appeal
(1997 (3)
SA 345
(SCA); ([1997}
2
B All SA between pp 594 and
595)). The object of
the
note is
essentially
twofold.
First, it enables the Chief Justice in settling the roll to
estimate
how much reading matter is to be
allocated to a particular Judge. Second, it assists Judges in
preparing the appeal without
wasting
time and energy in reading
irrelevant matter. Unless practitioners comply
with
the spirit of this requirement,
the objects are frustrated
and this in turn leads to a
longer waiting time for other matters.
Caterham's note boldly claimed
that the whole record was relevant
while
it had to be obvious that the
whole
record
of 30 volumes and 2669 pages could not be,
especially
in view of the
limitation of the issues on
appeal. When called upon by the learned Judge presiding to
reconsider,
we
were
informed that 11 volumes were irrelevant.
Even that was an understatement.
Much more was, as is apparent from Birkin
's
note
which
was filed
out of time.
This conduct
is unacceptable.
"
[31]
On
the
question
of
costs.
Regard being had to the dispute as it
unfolded
and
the role played by all the relevant parties, I am of the view that
the office of the Premier has caused this ship to sink whereas
she
was the person in authority well-placed to dispose of this dispute
expeditiously. It is deduced from the Premier's letter dated
15 July
2015 addressed to the applicants' attorneys
that her office ought to have referred
the dispute to the Commission for a
report but failed to do so. Notwithstanding that
the Premier has not opposed the
application
but
filed a Notice to Abide
this Court's
decision, it will be in the interests of fairness and equity that the
Premier's office pay 50
%
of
the costs of this application on the normal
scale as already pointed out. Although
the applicants have achieved substantial success in this application
they have contributed
in a large measure to the current situation.
[32]
In the result, the following order is
made:
1.
The Premier of the Northern Cape
Province is ordered to process the dispute lodged in terms of the
Court Order under Case Number 1234/2013
granted
on
25
October
2013
as
contemplated
in
section
59(1)(a)(iii)
and (4) of the Northern Cape Traditional
Leadership Governance and House of Traditional
Leaders
Act, 2 of 2007 within
14 Court
days of this order.
2.
The Premier of the Northern Cape is
ordered to pay 50 % of the costs of
this
application.
MAMOSEBO
J
NORTHERN
CAPE
DIVISION
For
the applicants:
Adv. B Babuseng
Instructed
by: Ntlha
Matlala Inc
c/o
Magoma Attorneys
For
the 1st,
2
nd
, 4
th
& 5
th
respondents:
Adv.
S Motloung
Instructed
by:
The
Office of the State Attorney
[1]
Identity
number of Motheo Jantjie omitted to protect his privacy
.
[2]
Northern
Cape Rule 3(6) stipulate
s
that:
(6)
In all opposed applications the heads
of argument of all partie
s
shall
be accompanied by a notice (the
practice notice) containing the
following concise details:
(a)
The
names
of the
legal
representatives
who
appear
on behalf
of
the respectiv
e
parties
(if known)
;
(b)
The nature of the application;
(c)
The relief which each of the parties
seek
;
(d)
The expected duration of argument;
(e)
An indication of the portions of the
record which, in the opinion of the legal representative, is not
relevant for the adjudication
of the application;
(f)
The issues which require determination;
(g)
A concise summary of the
argument/submissions of each party to the issues;
(h)
A list of authorities which will in
particular be relied upon during argument.