046976/2023–adj
2025-09-04
1 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 046976/2023
DATE: 2025-09-04
10 In the matter between
NKOSINATHI OSTA SIBANDA Applicant
and
AFFINITY HEALTH INSURANCE Respondent
JUDGMENT
F IS H E R , J : In the matter of N kosi n ath i Osta S i ban da this
judgm ent is given ex tempore on the 4 th of S eptember 2025 .
20 The appl i cati on before m e pu rports be an appl i cati on in
terms of rule 28 of the U n i f orm Rules of Court. I t
represen ts the latest in a barrage of sti l l born proceedi n gs
which have been brou gh t by the appl i can t for relief,
Mr S i ban da, against A f f i n i ty Health In su ran ce, who I will call
AHI.
DELETE WHICH EVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
(3) REVISED: YES
DATE 11 /9/2025
SIGNATURE
046976/2023–adj
2025-09-04
2 JUDGMENT
Mr S i ban da alleges that he was a client of A HI for
i ts produ ct which , inter alia, allows for l imited i n su ran ce
cover for health care. The i s ref erred to as policy docu men t
of 2021 / 04 / 07 with policy PX 000045006 / 8306046345081 .
This is al l egedl y the policy docu men t in issue.
Mr S i ban da alleges he was attacked in an armed
robbery which took place on 11 June 2022 and i n ju red. The
injury was to his r ight index f inger. At the t ime he was
empl oyed as a secu rity guard. He obtai ned t reatmen t for
10 the injury but he alleges that there was a breach of the
policy. I t seems that his con ten ti on is that A HI did not give
the n ecessary cover that his injury deserved under the
policy.
This breach , i t is al l eged, led to a deteri orati on in
his injury to the f inger and ult i matel y to i ts ampu tati on . This
he alleges as left him u n empl oyed and u n empl oyabl e as a
secu ri ty guard. For this he claims on vari ou s basis and with
ref eren ce to his pl eadi n gs, such as they are, i t can be
di scerned that the damages are both con tractual and
20 del i ctu al in nature.
The procedure adopted by Mr S i banda has i n volve d
a hybrid of the action and appl i cati on procedu res. The
con si sten t f eatu re of these ple adings i s that he makes three
claims.
Claim 1 i s pl eaded as follows:
046976/2023–adj
2025-09-04
3 JUDGMENT
“ The f i rst def en dan t is in pure malice,
breach of con tract and n egl i gen t of the
pl ai n ti f f , in l i fe th reaten i n g emergen cy and
def amatory of pl ai n ti f f name, due to
u n lawfu l action of f i rst def en dan t damages
by pl ai n ti f f sum of R 500 000 as a result of
f i rst def en dan t actions.”
Claim 2 i s pl eaded as follows:
“ Due to pain and su f f eri n g I went to
10 speci al i st at Cento Care H ospi tal and the
doctor said I must be ampu tated becau se i t
is too late to save the f inger. Due to lack
of funds and u n reason abl e delays for
h ospi tal i sati on , I went to Tembisa Public
H ospi tal and I was told by the doctor that
the damage is worse, I must be admi tted
on for amputation.”
The import of these al l egati on s i s that the f ai l u re of A HI to
comply with the terms of the policy cau sed the amputation.
20 This, in turn, he appears to allege, caused his loss of
employment.
The loss su f f ered under this claim is in amount
which i s vari ou sl y stated to be a R 1 - million and a R 100 000 .
Claim 3 i s stated as follows:
“ Due to sel f i sh greedy and self - i n terest to
046976/2023–adj
2025-09-04
4 JUDGMENT
secure profit . The second def en dan t
f rau du l en tl y drafted a new policy docu men t
and claim that i s the ori gi n al con tract of
2023 / 01 which i s total l y gross f rau du l en t
and vi ol ati on of con tract laws and
agreement.”
Mr S i ban da then claims that he is en ti tl ed, in terms of this
claim, for paymen t under wh at he con ten ds is the ori gi n al
policy of R 522 000 for “ acci den t di sabi l i ty ” .
10 AHI, has for some years been faced with this hybrid
process and a lack of adh eren ce by Mr S i ban da to even the
most basic procedu res and protocol . I t has, i t seems to me,
t r ied its best to accommodate and n avi gate the processe s
f i led.
Mr S i ban da has i n di scri mi n atel y caused pl eadi n g s
and n oti ces to be removed and u pl oaded ran doml y and a s
his whim takes him.
This Court is faced with a morass of docu men ts
which run to more than 1 300 pages and in respect of
20 which, i t must be said, that not one docu men t f i led by Mr
S i ban da has any cogen cy or legitimacy. Some of the
pl eadi n gs have been u pl oaded no less than three t imes.
On 5 July 2023 A HI served a notice in terms of
rules 30 and 30 ( A) to remove causes of compl ai n ts. The
next day, on 6 July 2023 , Mr S i ban da f i led, what h e
046976/2023–adj
2025-09-04
5 JUDGMENT
descri bed as a “ su pplementary f ou nding affidavit” but failed
to remove the cau ses for compl ai n ts. On the same day
Mr S i ban da f i led a secon d “ su ppl emen tary f ou n di n g
affidavit”, still failing to remove the cause of compl ai n an t.
On 2 August 2023 the respon den t brou gh t an
application in terms of rule 30 and 30 ( A) to strike out the
appl i can t' s pleadings. The application was heard in the
i n terl ocu tory court roll on 21 August 2023 before Manoim J.
The Court postpon ed the matter sine die for the appl ican t to
10 obtain the services of a legal represen tati ve and gave
Mr S i ban da 30 days to do so, failing which i t was i n di cated
that A HI could enrol the matter on the u n opposed roll.
This t reatmen t of Manoim J of the matter has
apparen tl y led to Mr S i ban da reporti n g Manoim J for alleged
mi scon du ct. The appl i can t did not appoint attorn eys but on
11 October he f i led yet a f u rth er process which he termed:
“ Notice of removal of all pl ai n ti f f ’ s f i led
docu men ts in this action”.
The notice f u rth er stated that:
20 “ The su mmon s will be correctl y rei ssu ed as
requ i red by rules of this court.”
The i n ten ti on of Mr S i ban da i s not clear f rom this notice.
AHI assumed that he meant that the hybri d
su mmon s/ appl i cati on process had been w i th draw n and that
the process would commen ce afresh by way of the issue of
046976/2023–adj
2025-09-04
6 JUDGMENT
a new su mmon s. This was a reason abl e assu mpti on .
H ow ever on 2 N ovember 2023 Mr S i ban da f i led further
process under the h eadi n g: “Reissue of amended initiating
documents.” under the same case number as the ori gi n al
summons.
This rel au n ch i n g was si mi l arl y hybrid in that i t still
pu rports to be both an appl i cati on and an action. A HI has,
i t appears, attempted to n avi gate this u n w i el dy process on
the basis that i t has sought to bring the matter to some
10 sembl an ce of order so that the norm al process can take
their course.
After f i l ing by Mr S i banda of a process pu rportedl y
in terms of rule 34 ( A), which is total l y an omal ou s in the
context of this al ready aberran t procedu ral morass adopted
by Mr S i ban da and on 5 D ecember 2023 A HI f i led a notice
i n ten ti on to oppose Mr Sibanda’ s rule 34 appl i cati on
togeth er with an an sw eri n g af f i davi t.
On 15 August 2024 the rule 34 ( A) appl i cati on , such
as i t was, was heard before Wilson J. The appl ication was
20 di smi ssed by Wilson J and the Court made the following
observati on in his judgment:
“ The upshot of al l of this, I regret, is that
no relief can be gran ted to the pl ai n ti f f
today. I hope that he man ages to obtain
prof essi on al legal advice, which, on the
046976/2023–adj
2025-09-04
7 JUDGMENT
facts of this case, seem to me to be
avai l abl e to him on a con ti n gen cy basis.
N on eth el ess, there i s only so far a judge
can go to assist a lay l i t igant in the
prosecu ti on of a case that may or may
have…, may not have meri ts. I have gone
as far as I can.”
AHI makes the point that Mr Sibanda l i t igates f rom the
EFF’ s head office in Marsh al l town and that he states the
10 f ol l ow i n g in all the af f i davi ts f i led by him:
“ Where and w h en ever I make legal
su bmi ssi on s, I do so on the advice of my
legal team, which advice I accept as
correct.”
That is the history of the proceedi n gs thus far as they
emerge f rom the records before me.
I move now to the appl i cati on which serves befor e
me which as I have said is an appl i cati on in terms of rule
28 .
20 I t has been di f f i cu l t for me to come to grips with this matter
due to the copi ou s f i l ings by Mr S i ban da over the years and
in view of his ref u sal to f i le a practi ce note in the matter,
which was his obl i gati on .
The respon den ts descri be in their u n i l ateral
practi ce note the di f ficulti es which have been experi en ced
046976/2023–adj
2025-09-04
8 JUDGMENT
by them in obtai n i n g his cooperati on for this and other
processes which have been brou gh t against them.
I t is i n di cated in A HI’ s practi ce note that was f i led for these
proceedi n gs that when, on the occasi on of a previ ou s
h eari n g, the attorn eys i n i ti ated a pre - t r ial meeti n g with
Mr S i ban da at which he presen ted as extremel y bel l i geren t
and su bsequ en tl y addressed an email to the attorn eys with
vari ou s accu sati on s being made agai n st them.
Mr S i ban da has f u rth er more failed to cooperate in
10 the drawing of the practice notes in these proceedings
which has resu l ted in A HI having to f i le a u n i l ateral note.
During my h eari n g Mr S i ban da yesterday, he i n di cated that
he wished to hand up docu men ts which he said would make
the argu i n g of the process clearer. I adjou rn ed the
proceedi n gs until today ( the f ol l ow i n g day) and f aci l i tated ,
th rou gh my regi strar, the u pl oadi n g of the docu men ts on
Case Lines for a full h eari n g, i n cl u di n g the docu men ts which
were handed in.
I expressed during argu men t that I would t ry to
20 make sense of the papers overnight on the basis that I
would t ry to render the unruly processes f i led into a
w orkabl e process, w orki n g f rom the pl atf orm of the rule 28
process which served before me and my di screti on under
that rule. Alas, the state of the f i l ings i s such that this i s
impossible.
046976/2023–adj
2025-09-04
9 JUDGMENT
I am thus faced with the rule 28 appl i cati on to be
determi n ed on i ts terms.
Mr S i ban da pu rportedl y seeks to amend his
parti cu l ars of claim in the rei n stated process which he has
u n i l ateral l y sought to bring into procedu ral being. In the
notice of i n ten ti on to amend, Mr S i ban da i n di cates that he
wishes to amend his parti cu l ars of claim in the f ol l ow i n g
manner:
10 “ Take notice further that, the plaintiff in
these action proceedi n gs i s here to amend
his parti cu l ars of claim by removi n g claim 1
and put claim 2 as the main claim 1 and
claim 1 to be claim 3 and claim 3 to be
claim 2 . ”
This appl i cati on to amend i s perpl exi n g. Why the
sw oppi n g round of the claims would be of any assi stan ce to
a procedural and su bstantive compl ex which seems , on the
20 face of i t , to be h opelessl y and f u n damen tal l y i r regu l ar, is
not expl ai n ed by Mr Sibanda.
He addressed me at some length today on the fact
that he wished that I accept the docu men ts which he placed
on record and which were u pl oaded with the assi stan ce of
my regi strar yesterday, to be taken to be his su mmon s.
046976/2023–adj
2025-09-04
10 JUDGMENT
I expl ai n ed to him that this was not a competen t and that I
was duty bound to deal with the appl i cati o n before me.
Mr S i ban da was given every i n du l gen ce by this
Court as he was in the courts before this court which have
heard him and wh ich are men ti on ed above.
I t appears also that A HI and i ts legal represen tati ves have,
in the past, sought to lend some form to the processes
which are devi sed by Mr S i ban da on the basis that he i s
en ti tled to i n sti tute i r regu lar proceedings as and how he
10 sees f i t .
This is clearly an i mpossi bl e state of affairs. H e
has deman ded to be heard in these proceedi n gs before me,
n otw i th stan di n g, by his own admi ssi on , he has not compl i ed
with even the most ru di men tary practi ce requ i remen ts which
entitle him to a h eari n g.
This appl i cati on pu rportedl y brou gh t under rule 28
has no prospects of su ccess and is i r regu l ar on i ts face.
C ou n sel for A HI makes the point that Mr S i ban da seems to
believe he can operate with impunity. I agree. He has
20 brought and continues to bring outlandish applications,
even up until yesterday where he sought to place
docu men ts before me with no form or su bstan ce.
The fact that Mr Sibanda has been met in
su ccessi ve h eari n gs with a measu re of accommodati on due
to his being a l i t igant in person , has apparen tl y contributed
046976/2023–adj
2025-09-04
11 JUDGMENT
to his sense of i mpu n i ty and entitlement.
Whilst i t is a l au datory f eatu re of our con sti tu ti on al
democracy, and one jeal ou sl y gu arded by these cou rts, that
person s who are u n represen ted are en cou raged to seek
au di ence, l argesse in accommodating u n represented
l i t igants cannot be without all reason and on the basis that
the ju di ci al processes are al l ow ed to be abu sed.
AHI says this cannot go on. I t is called upon
repeatedly to deal with i r regu lar proceedi n g upon i r regular
10 proceedi n gs to i ts own preju di ce and si gn i f i can t cost. This
is apparen t f rom the copi ou s record in this matter which i s
on Case Lines.
Mr S i ban da has reach ed the end of his
accommodati on by this court. The appl i cati on i s w i th ou t
any basis or any pu rpose and falls to be di smi ssed.
As to costs, I agree with cou n sel for AHI that i f
Mr S i ban da i s not di ssu aded f rom the course which he has
embarked upon, at least with adverse cost i mpl i cati on s, he
will con tinu e to launch proceedi n gs which are devoid of any
20 merit and on the face of them abusive of this court’ s
processes to the preju di ce of A HI.
In these ci rcu mstan ces I make the f ol l ow i n g order:
1. The appl i cati on to amend is dismissed.
2. Mr S i banda i s to pay the costs of the appl i cation on
scale B.
046976/2023–adj
2025-09-04
12 JUDGMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
… … … … … … … … … …
FI S H ER , J
JU D G E O F TH E HIG H C OU RT
DAT E : 11 Se pte m ber 20 25