IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DNISION, PRETORIA
DELETE WH ICHE V ER IS NOT APPLICABLE CASE NO: 129687/2025
1) REPORTABLE : NO
2) OF INTEREST T~O~-!Plrl~lj,l,,l-l-=~
3) RE VISED
18 August _2025
DATE
In the matter between:
JAN HENDRICK STEPHANUS VENTER
JUAN NATHAN VENTER
and
BIDVEST BANK LIMITED
ABSA BANK LIMITED
SOUTHERN AFRICAN FRAUD PREVENTION SERVICE
TRANSUNION CREDIT BUREAU
EXPERIAN CREDIT BUREAU
COMPUSCAN CREDIT BUREAU
XDS CREDIT BUREAU
First App licant
Second App licant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Responde nt
Fifth Respondent
S ixth Responde nt
Seventh Respondent
Eighth Responde nt
1
2
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
MOGALE, AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an opposed urgent application in which the applicants seek the following
reliefs:
(a) That the applicants be removed from SAFPS listings and any adverse
credit listings, and that such listing s be declared unlawful,
unconstitutional, and defamatory.
(b) That the applicants ’ listing by the first to fourth respondents as fraud
suspects be declared unlawful and contrary to section 33 of the
Constitution and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000.
(c) The applicants also claim damages for loss of income, general damages
for defamation, harm to their reputation, and psychological suffering.
(d) That the respondents be ordered to issue a written apology to the
applicants.
(e) That the respondents be ordered to pay costs on the scale as between
attorney and client.
[2] The applicants were unrepresented, while the first , second and third
respondents were represented.
Background
[3] The first applicants enrolled this matter on the urgent court roll scheduled to
commence on 12 August 2025. The matter was assigned to me when the roll was
published on 8 August 2025 . The registrar issued a directive stating that all matters
would be heard in open court and outlined the timeframe s for filing supporting
documents.
3
[4] It is noteworthy that between 9 and 10 August 2025, multiple emails inundated
my inbox over the weekend, addre ssed personally to me, in which the first applicant
urged me to disregard the respondent’s notice of intention to oppose and their
supporting affidavit.1
[5] The emails continued on Monday, 11 August 2025, wherein the first applicant
threatened the Court regarding his constitutional right to be heard virtually, citing that
his life was endangered and that he was unable to attend court in person.2
[6] Having considered the request, and with the respondents’ consent, the registrar
created a virtual hearing link and sent it to all parties. I believed the first applicant was
satisfied with the arrangement; however, I was surprised to receive an email
containing an urgent complaint about my judicial conduct, sent to nearly one hundred
recipients.3 These emails were sent on the evening of 11 August 2025, both before
the hearing scheduled for 12 August 2025.
The application
[7] Upon reviewing the applicant’s application, I noticed the following irregularities:
(a) The application did not comply with Rule 4(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of
Court, in that the urgent application was not served by the Sheriff but
rather served by way of an email. No proper justification for non -
compliance was provided.
(b) The Notice of Motion was defective , as it did not include a timetable for
the delivery of the Notice of Intention to oppose and the opposing
affidavit.
(c) The second applicant’s confirmatory affidavit was not file d in support of
the founding affidavit.
[8] Considering these factors, I informed the applicant that his papers were not in
order; consequently, the matter cannot proceed. The first applicant acknowledged the
1 See caseline 000-01.
2 See caseline 000-09-11.
3 See caseline 000-16-20.
4
issues raised but requested that the court recognise him as a layperson, and in the
interest of justice, accommodate him by adjudicating the matter.
[9] During the discussion with the first applicant , it was discovered that he was
dissatisfied with the findings made by the Pretoria High Court in case number
45361/2021, presided over by the Honourable Justice van der Westhuizen on 14
September 2021. The urgent application involved the same parties and facts as the
present matter and was dismissed.4
[10] Counsel for the respondents vigorously objected to the applicant’s request for
the accommodation in the interest of justice. They argued that the applicant was using
the same method to dictate to the court how it should function, under the guise of being
unrepresented.
[11] The respondents’ counsel further contended that the papers were
fundamentally flawed, and that the court should not be swayed by the applicant’s
intimidation. Advocate Coetzee, representing the second respondent, refer red to
Judge van der Westhuizen's comments in his judgment about the conduct of the first
applicant at paragraphs 25-30, as follows:
“Subsequently, when the applicant realised that he cannot dictate to the Court how
and when the matter should be heard, he reverted to other problems, which
presumably relate to his health. How that can affect coming to court is not clear.
No detail is set out in the application. No supplementary affidavit indicating the issues
or providing the required medical certificate to that effect. Considering the application
as a whole, and in particular in the context of what the respondents say, none of
which has been gainsaid in a replying affid avit, the applicant seeks to hold all to
ransom. The Courts must jump to his simple whims.
The respondents are to pay damages and jump to his simple whims. There is no
basis on which the relief, insofar as that can be gleaned from the notice of motion, or
ascertained therefrom, can be granted”.
ascertained therefrom, can be granted”.
4 See caseline 35-1.
5
The duty of the courts to a lay litigant
[12] Section 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provides
that:
“[e]veryone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application
of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, an other
independent and impartial tribunal or forum”.
[13] Courts have a duty to approach cases involving lay litigants in accordance with
this constitutional imperative. In Sasol South Africa v Penkin,5 the court held that the
right to have access to the court…
“is an embodiment of an ancient common law principle that a person has a right to a
fair hearing, which has, at its core, the right of a litigant to tell her or his side.”
[14] The Constitutional Court in Eke v Parsons6 emphasised the following:
‘[w]ithout doubt, rules governing the court process cannot be disregarded. They
serve an undeniably important purpose. That, however, does not mean that courts
should be detained by the rules to a point where they are hamstrung in the
performance of the core funct ion of dispensing justice. Put differently, rules should
not be observed for their own sake. Where the interests of justice so dictate, courts
may depart from a strict observance of the rules. That, even where one of the litigants
is insistent that there be adherence to the rules’.
[15] The Constitutional Court underscored the significance of adhering to the rules
of court as essential for the proper administration of justice while cautioning against
rigid application where it obstructs justice. Nonetheless, unrepresented litigants should
not be permitted to undermine judicial processes through wilful non-compliance.
[16] Although the applicants' papers were defective for adjudication, I still bore the
responsibility to assess the circumstances of the matter without dealing with the
5 [2023](06609/2020) ZAGPLHC 329 (14 April 2023) at para 6.
5 [2023](06609/2020) ZAGPLHC 329 (14 April 2023) at para 6.
6 2015 (11) BCLR 1319 (CC); 2016 (3) SA 37 (CC) at para 39.
6
merits. It was discovered that the first applicant re-enrolled the matter that had already
been adjudicated and dismissed. I provided a recommendation on the appropriate
legal procedures.
[17] The first applicant acknowledged the difficulty faced by the court in addressing
the defective application and recognised that the matter had been filed in an incorrect
court. However, he issued a threat of an appeal should his application be dismissed
or struck off the roll. The first applicant sent an email on 13 August 2025, enclosing a
document that appears to be a n application for leave to appeal the decision, which
has not yet been granted. It is appropriate and prudent to note that, at the time this
judgment was prepared and before it was delivered, the leave to appeal had already
been submitted via email and uploaded on caseline.7
[18] The persistent complaints, intimidations, and threats directed at the court and
the judiciary compel me to agree with my brother, Van der Westhuizen J, in his
characterisation of the applicant’s conduct. He described the first applicant’s behaviour
as an attempt to manipulate the courts into granting relief on his terms. Should the
court not rule in favour of the first applicant, he begins to exhibit petulant behaviour of
throwing his toys out of the cot and sending threatening emails to multiple recipients.
[19] In conclusion, the matter cannot proceed due to defective documents, and a
proper case has not been established for the court to adjudicate it. This is a re -
enrolment of a previously dismissed matter in the incorrect forum, and as a result, this
application must be struck off.
Costs order
[20] On the issue of costs, counsel for respondents submitted that the applicant s
should not only be ordered to pay costs but also be subjected to a punitive cost order.
This is due to the first applicant’s disregard for the rules of the Court, his persistent
intimidation, and the abuse of the urgent court process.
intimidation, and the abuse of the urgent court process.
7 see caseline 40-01.
7
[21] The abuse of process lies not only in the manner in which this application has
been drafted and served but also in the fact that the applicants re-enrolled the matter
that was dismissed in 2021 in an urgent court. In this regard, the punitive cost order is
justified.
[22] The first applicant respectfully requested the court to refrain from issuing any
order for costs. Despite seeking an order that the respondents bear the costs on a
scale as between attorney and client, acknowledging that neither of the applicants are
legal practitioner and prepared the documents th emselves. T he first applicant
emphasised his unemployment status and the lack of assets that could be attached to
satisfy legal expenses. Additionally, the first applicant contended that the second
respondent should not be subjected to censure.
[23] In my view, this court is compelled to admonish the applicants for their conduct.
The first applicant sits behind his computer, sending communications without
considering the consequences of his actions. He is unwilling to appear in court for his
application; instead, he dictates to the courts how his case should be adjudicated,
fabricating various reasons for his inability to attend court, often while seated at his
computer in the comfort of his residence, awaiting the opportunity to participate.
[24] The respondents were compelled to incur legal costs to defend a matter that
was scheduled to be heard in an urgent court, despite being aware that the matter had
been dismissed in 2021. The respondents' counsel had to work tirelessly within a
limited timeframe, drafting and filing documents opposing his application on an urgent
court roll and attending court in person for roll call. They also had to agree to a virtual
hearing, accommodating the applicants.
[25] The first applicant claims he is unemployed with no assets, meaning nothing
can be seized from him, and he will face no repercussions. This mindset causes him
can be seized from him, and he will face no repercussions. This mindset causes him
to spend a considerable amount of time on his computer, often sending threatening
emails to various recipients aimed at intimidating the cour ts and pressuring them to
grant the relief he desires.
[26] The first applicant's belief that, as a lay litigant, one possesses a licence to
disregard and violate legal and judicial procedures and that the courts must comply
with his demands is unacceptable. Such conduct demonstrates a lack of respect for
the judiciary and warrants the enforcement of a punitive sanction.
Order
[26] As a result, I make the following order:
1. The application is struck off the roll.
2. The applicants are ordered to pay the respondents' costs on an
attorney-client scale.
KMOGALE,
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
8
9
Date of hearing: 12 August 2025
Date of judgment: 18 August 2025
APPEARANCES
1st Applicant : Jan Hendrik Stephanus Venter
2nd Applicant : Juan Nathan Venter
Instructed by : in person
1st Respondent’s counsel: Adv. H. Salani
Instructed by : Eversheds Sutherland (SA) Inc.
2nd Respondent’s counsel: Advocate D. J. Coetzee
Instructed by : SNB Attorney
3rd respondent’s counsel : Advocate Buthelezi
Instructed by : Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc.