1
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No:215354/25
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
DATE 29 APRIL 2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
TSHINAKAHO CYNTHIA RAMANUGU
Applicant
and
REGIONALD NZAMA MATHEBULA
First Respondent
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, PRETORIA Second Respondent
_________________________________________________________________________________
NEUKIRCHER J:
1] This is an urgent application for the recission of an order granted by Goosen
2
AJ on 7 April 2026 in the urgent Family Court. The order was granted, without
appearance by the applicant (although she had filed answering papers), as follows:
“1. …
2. The Second Respondent 1 is hereby directed and authorized to forthwith uplift
and cancel Caveat I – 310/2025I, which was noted against the title deed of
the immovable property described as UNIT 3[...] P[...], A[...] ESTATE, THE
REEDS, PRETORIA (“the Property”).
3. The sale and registration of transfer of the Property referred to in paragraph 2
above for the sum of R1,350,000.00 is authorized to proceed immediately
and/or any other subsequent sale thereof.
4. The Sheriff of the High Court is hereby authorized and directed, in terms of
Clause 5 of the Court Order under Case No GP/PTA/RC/2443/2018, to sign
any and all necessary conveyancing documentation, Offers to Purchase, and
transfer documents on behalf of the First Respondent, dispensing with any
need for her cooperation.
5. That all costs associated with the Sheriff’s involvement, as contemplated in
prayer 4 above, shall be borne by the First Respondent.
6. The First Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application, as well as
the costs of the main application, on a punitive attorney and client scale C.”
2] I must remark in passing that once attorney and client costs are ordered, it is
unnecessary to set the scale at which those costs must be taxed – they are
automatically taxed on the punitive scale by virtue of the order. It is only when party
and party costs are ordered that it is necessary for the court to state the scale on
which those costs must be taxed. The reason for this is that the default position is
that costs are taxed on Scale A unless the court orders otherwise.
1 The Registrar of Deeds
3
3] The facts of this application are not contentious. It is common cause that the
present first respondent (RNM) launched an urgent application and set it down for
hearing on 31 March 2026. The present applicant’s (TCM) attorney appeared on that
date and sought leave to file TCM’s answering affidavit. As a result, the urgent
application was postponed sine die and TCM was ordered to pay the punitive costs
of that postponement.
4] RNM’s attorney then filed a notice of set down for 7 April 2026 for the urgent
Family Court. It is common cause that this was emailed to TCM’s attorney. It is
common cause that it was not served on the Registrar of Deeds. It is lastly common
cause that on 7 April 2026, although TCM had previously filed her answering
affidavit, there was no appearance for her and the order was granted as sought. As I
do not have a transcript of those proceedings, and there is no ex tempore judgment,
I make no further comment.
5] According to TCM’s attorney, the order came to his attention on 9 April 2026
when he accessed CaseLines to upload TCM’s served documents. He then saw the
order of 7 April 2026. He then went through his inbox emails and saw that the
replying affidavit had been emailed to him on 1 April 2026. Another perusal of
CaseLines showed that a notice of set down had been uploaded. This he eventually
found in his “spam” folder. He also found in that “spam” folder heads of argument
that had been emailed to him on 2 April 2026.
4
6] This is therefore the reason that the notice of set down had not come to his
attention in time and it also explains why there was no appearance for TCM on 7
April 2026.
7] There is certainly something to be said about the attorney’s failure to check
his emails, including his spam folder, daily (if not more often than that) as this entire
application could have been avoided had he simply done so.
8] Be that as it may, what is more concerning is an issue that was only raised in
reply. Whilst this method of litigation is to be deprecated, an issue was raised which
has proven to be dispositive of the recission application: as it turns out, there is no
proof of service of either the main application or the notice of set down of that
application2 on the Registrar of Deeds. The Registrar of Deeds was not merely cited
as an interested party in the main application – relief was sought against it. It was
therefore imperative that the application be served on it.
9] RNM’s counsel addressed me on this issue and although he “seemed to
recall” serving on the Registrar of Deeds, he conceded that there was no proof of
that service uploaded to CaseLines.
10] This means that at the time the main application was heard on 7 April 2026,
the papers were not in order. I am of the view that had this issue been brought to the
attention of court at that time, the order would not have been granted as the service
2 Which was raised by TCM
5
is a material aspect. As a result, I find that the order was therefore erroneously
sought and erroneously granted within the meaning of Rule 42(1)(a).
11] Given that I am of the view that the order was erroneously sought and
erroneously granted, it is not necessary for TCM to show “good cause”3.
12] However, in my view, TCM has litigated in a less than satisfactory manner.
Firstly, her delay in filing her answering affidavit in the main application caused a
delay in those proceedings. Secondly, her attorney’s negligence in checking his
emails does not excuse her. 4 Thirdly, the way she has litigated this recission
application leaves much to be desired. I intend to show my displeasure by making an
appropriate order for costs.
ORDER
1. The order granted by Goosen AJ on 7 April 2026 is rescinded and set aside.
2. The applicant (TCM) is ordered to pay the first respondent’s (RNM) costs of
the recission application on the attorney and client scale.
____________________________
B NEUKIRCHER
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
3 Bakoven Ltd v GJ Howes (Pty) Ltd 1992 (2) SA 466 (E). Topol and Others v LD Group Management
Services (Pty) Ltd 1988 (1) SA 639 (W)
4 De Wet and Others v Western Bank 1977 (4) SA 770 (T); Topol and Others (supra)
6
This judgment was prepared and authored by the judge whose name is reflected and
is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives
by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. The
date for hand-down is deemed to be 29 April 2026.
For the Applicant : Mr Mekwa
Instructed by : Mekwa & Associates Attorneys
For the First Respondent : Mr Baloyi
Instructed by : Baloyi Ntsako Attorneys Inc
Matter heard on : 23 April 2026
Judgment date : 29 April 2026