JUDGMENT


DU PLESSIS J

Introduction
[1] The second and fourth respondents set this matter down on the unopposed
motion court roll. Their stated intention in doing so was to finalise the matter, as the
applicant had not properly enrolled it on the opposed motion court roll.

[2] The application originated as an urgent application seeking to interdict
Magistrate Mr Teixeira from executing a court order pending a decision by this Court
on the urgent application. The applicant purported to be represented by Mr Michael
Mahlomola Motaung under section 38 of the Constitution. However, it appears that Mr
Motaung does not have the right of appearance in the High Court in terms of section
33 of the Legal Practice Act
1 (read with s 25(3)).

[3] The applicant then issued a second notice of motion to join the other
respondents. This notice of motion was defective in that it failed to specify a clear date,
referring instead to "30th day of 2024", and it set an adjudication date of 3 June 2024
despite only being served on 4 June 2024. The second and fourth respondents filed a
notice of intention to oppose in response to this notice of motion. There was very little
movement thereafter. The second and fourth respondents filed heads of argument in
September 2024, and a practice note in November 2024. The matter was not placed
on the opposed motion court roll for a hearing.

[4] The applicant stated that he obtained a date on the opposed motion court roll
for 28 July 2025. However, he has not set the matter down for that date. There is no
notice of set down filed. There is no practice note from the applicant. There is no heads
of argument from the applicant. The application is not properly indexed and paginated.
Making sense of the file on CaseLines is challenging, with certain documents only
available online in court. In short, the application on CaseLines is incomplete, and from

1 28 0f 2014.

2
the record, it is not evident that the matter is correctly enrolled on the opposed motion
court roll.

[5] The second and fourth respondents question how the applicant obtained a date
on the opposed motion court roll without complying with the Rules of Court and the
applicable Practice Directives. They contend that the applicant's actions amount to an
abuse of court process, designed to frustrate and delay the second respondent's ability
to execute the Magistrates' Court order. They need clarity and finality in the matter,
and in the absence of the applicant's compliance with the Practice Directive, they
treated the matter as unopposed and placed it on the unopposed motion court roll,
which is how it came before me.

[6] The applicant then filed an application in terms of Rule 60A to set aside what
he considered an irregular step a few days before the hearing (presumably rather Rule
30 ). The second and fourth respondents opposed this application.

[7] Mr Marais, appearing for the second and fourth respondents, submitted that the
matter should be struck from the roll and should only be re-enrolled once the applicant
has complied with the Rules of Court and the Practice Manual in the absence of the
matter being dismissed.

[8] I could not allow Mr Motaung to address the court on the issues on behalf of
the applicant, as he failed to establish that he has the right of appearance in the High
Court in terms of the Legal Practice Act, and should he present the applicant without
having a right to do so, the proceedings can be considered irregular.
2

[9] I allowed the applicant to address the court. The applicant inquired about what
he needs to do for the court to hear the matter on an opposed basis, re-iterating that
he is the applicant. I informed the applicant that if he has indeed secured a date on
the opposed motion court roll, he must serve a notice of set down for the application
should he wish to continue the matter in the High Court.

should he wish to continue the matter in the High Court.


2 Mdluli v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services [2024] ZAGPJHC 1529.