REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 2025-110223





In the matter between
YVONNE KHOLOFELO RAMATSETSE-MOLOI FIRST APPLICANT
and
MPUNA ELLEN SHIREMANE FIRST RESPONDENT
PABALLO MAHLOSANE MOLOI SECOND RESPONDENT
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMISSION THIRD RESPONDENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY FOURTH RESPONDENT
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT FIFTH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Van der Schyff J
Introduction


(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO

Date: 1 August 2025 E van der Schyff

2

2

[1] The applicant approached the court for urgent relief. The facts of the matter are,
however, peculiar in the sense that it is a second application instituted by the
applicant following on the demise of Mr. Mpho Muntu Moloi. In the first application ,
she sought to be recognised as his customary law wife or partner. The first
application was, however, seemingly abandoned, and the second was instituted on
the basis that she is his customary law wife or partner. She seemingly succeeded in
registering a customary law marriage after she insti tuted the first application and
without the knowledge of the first and second respondents. A further conundrum in
this matter is that the Master of the High Court issued two letters of executorship in
the Estate Late M.M. Moloi. There is no indication that the applicant approached the
Master to set aside the first letter of exe cutorship. These aspects, in themselves,
create difficulties for the applicant that can hardly be addressed in motion
proceedings.

[2] The first question to be determined, however, is whether the applicant made out a
case for this application to be heard as an urgent application. The deceased passed
away on 14 June 2024. The first respondent received an appointment as executor
of the deceased's estate. However, the applicant fails to inform the court when she
became aware of this appointment, which she now wants to set aside. She also fails
to explain how she succeeded in obtaining a subsequent appointment as executrix
in the same deceased estate without being appoin ted as co -executor, or with the
first appointment being withdrawn.

[3] The date on which she became aware of the appointment of the first respondent as
executrix is essential for a party who wants to convince the court that an application
should be dealt with on an urgent basis.

[4] The applicant claims that the urgency arose on 25 June 2025 when she was
informed that she needed to obtain a court order to remove the second respondent

informed that she needed to obtain a court order to remove the second respondent
as the director of her ‘late husband ’s company ’. The applicant makes general,
unsubstantiated averments that the second respondent ’s directorship of the closed
corporation, a juristic person not cited in these p roceedings, causes ‘ongoing
financial harm’. She fails to explain how the second respondent harms the close

3

3

corporation. She further makes an unsubstantiated general statement that the first
and second respondents will squander the assets of the business.

[5] Counsel for the first and second respondents submitted that the application is not
ripe for hearing, among others, due to the peculiarity caused by the existence of the
two applications, and the first and second respondents’ view that the issue of the
existence of the customa ry law marriage needs to be determined through review
proceedings. I agree.

[6] The same problems, however, is faced by the first and second respondents who
issued a counte r application. No case was made out why the counter application
must be dealt with on an urgent basis, particularly in light of the fact that this court is
not convinced that the Master of the High Court was first approached for relief.

[7] The applicants and first and second respondents failed to make out a case that they
will not be in a position to obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due course.
Each party is responsible for its own costs.


ORDER
In the result, the following order is granted:
1. The application is struck from the roll.
2. Each party is responsible for its own costs.

__ ________
E van der Schyff
Judge of the High Court

Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of
this matter on CaseLines. In the event that there is a discrepancy between the date the judgment
is signed and the date it is uploaded to CaseLines, the date the judgment is uploaded to
CaseLines is deemed to be the date that the judgment is handed down.

4

4

For the applicant: Adv. B. Letuka
Instructed by: LEBO THAKADU INC.

For the first and second respondents: Adv. K. Maponya
Instructed by: AS CHILOANE ATTORNEYS

Date of the hearing: 31 July 2025
Date of judgment: 1 August 2025