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. 026212/2026
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED
DATE: 18 May 2026
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
ADVOCATE LUZELLE ADAMS
Applicant
and
N[...] C[...] M[...] A[...] L[...]
Respondent
In re: the Ex-Parte application of:
N[...] C[...] M[...] A[...] L[...]
Applicant
2
For the appointment of a curator ad litem to:
M[...] G[...] P[...] L[...]
Patient
ADVOCATE LUZELLE ADAMS
Respondent
Coram: Millar J
Heard on: 8 May 2025
Delivered: 18 May 2026 - This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties' representatives by email, by being
uploaded to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to
SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 09H00
on 18 May 2026.
JUDGMENT
MILLAR J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment handed down on
23 March 2026. The notice of application for leave to appeal was delivered on
15 April 2026. The application was only heard on 8 May 2026, as that is when
the counsel for the parties were both available.
3
[2] The order granted on 23 March 2026 was a declaratory order relating to the
capacity of the late Mr. L[...] to manage his affairs during his lifetime. There was
also an order for costs against Ms. Adams.
[3] It is not in issue that during his lifetime, Mr. L[...] was married in community of
property to his wife, Mrs. L[...], and that at least from 25 May 2025, he was of
unsound mind and incapable of managing his own affairs. This fact was within
the knowledge of Ms. Adams, who lived with the late Mr. L[...] and accompanied
him to all his medical appointments. Ms. Adams knew that Mrs. L[...] and her
son K[...] L[...] were concerned about the state of health of Mr. L[...], and despite
knowing that Dr. Makasi was of the view that he was of unsound mind, sought
to enlist her assistance in concealing this fact by withdrawing the consent to
receive Dr. Makasi’s report.
[4] I dealt with these circumstances at some length in the main judgment and will
not repeat them here. It suffices to state that Ms. Adams' conduct in attempting
to conceal the true state of Mr. L[...]’s health was for selfish reasons.
[5] It cannot be overlooked that while Mr. L[...] was alive, his estate was a
community estate with Ms. L[...]. Ms. Adams was aware of this but nonetheless
proceeded to empty the bank accounts anyway, while she was consenting to
the appointment of an interim curator bonis.
[6] I have set out in summary what this case is about because it concerns an
elderly Mrs. L[...] whose interests in the community estate were disregarded by
Ms. Adams, who transacted with assets in that estate – a person who had no
right to do so. Once Ms. Adams agreed to the order on 12 February 2026, one
would have thought that from that point onward, the case would be
administrative in nature. It was never denied by her that Mr. L[...] had not been
4
of sound mind and capable of managing his affairs from 25 May 2025 or that Dr.
Makasi’s report was impeachable.
[7] Turning now to the two main grounds upon which this application for leave to
appeal has been brought. The first is that the application for the declaratory
order had not been brought by the curator, who, in any event, had been
discharged by operation of law upon the death of Mr. L[...] and the second was
that the court had misconstrued the application as being one for maintenance
as opposed to one to determine the best interests of Mr. L[...].
[8] Firstly, the original application was brought by Mrs. L[...] in both her capacity as
the wife of Mr. L[...] and regarding his state of mind and well-being, but also
regarding the financial management of the joint estate. Mrs. L[...] had an
interest in the administration of the joint estate during the lifetime of Mr. L[...]
and this interest, together with the declaratory order, which was sought and
granted, persists.
[9] Ms Adams does not seem to accept that the affairs of the joint estate have
nothing to do with her. At best, the claim for maintenance that she may prefer in
respect of her minor child is only against Mr. L[...]’s share of the joint estate.
Before that can be determined, the whole of the estate is to be determined.
Raising this issue seems to be for no purpose other than to obfuscate the fact
that, for almost nine months, despite knowing Mr. L[...] was incapable of
managing his affairs, she continued transacting on his accounts, well knowing
that, as a matter of law, any authority he may have given her to do so, had
lapsed.
[10] It simply doesn’t lie in the mouth of Ms. Adams to complain that the declaratory
order ought not to have been granted upon application by Mrs. L[...]. In any
event, the curator had reported, and that report had revealed the extent to
5
which Ms. Adams had transacted on the account and the fact that she had mala
fide emptied Mr. L[...]’s bank account on the day that she was agreeing to the
order appointing the interim curator bonis. It is correct that, having become
deceased, no order in terms of rule 57 would be of effect in respect of Mr. L[...].
The declaratory order is, however, of application to the joint estate and will be of
moment in the winding up of that estate.
[11] Secondly, the application was not moot or limited solely to the provisions of rule
57. Ms. Adams was well aware that no affidavits had been procured from the
experts concerned relating to the state of mind of Mr. L[...], but did not place this
in issue in agreeing to the order that the interim curator bonis be appointed.
This is unsurprising as it cannot be placed in issue that Ms. Adams knew from
at least 25 May 2025 of the condition of Mr. L[...] but persisted, nonetheless.
The Rules are there for the Court and not the other way around. This ground
would have the Court place form over substance in the face of an undisputed
state of affairs.
[12] Lastly, it was stated in the notice of appeal that a costs order ought not to be
granted against Ms. Adams as she was not before the Court. The Court order of
12 February 2026 is explicit – she was granted leave to intervene and then
became a respondent in the proceedings. Costs are a matter which fall within
the discretion of the Court and the contention that costs ought not to have been
awarded against her in circumstances where her mala fide conduct had been
brought to the attention of the Court is simply unsustainable.
[13] The test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present matter is set
out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act1 as follows:
1 10 of 2013.
6
“(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges
concerned are of the opinion that
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should
be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration”
[14] I have considered the grounds upon which this application has been brought
and the reasons given by me for the judgment. I have also considered the
submissions made by counsel for the granting of leave to appeal and those on
the part of counsel opposing the granting of leave to appeal.
[15] For the reasons set out above, I am not persuaded that another court would
come to a different conclusion or that there is some other compelling reason
why leave to appeal should be granted.
[16] Costs will follow the result on the same basis as was granted on 23 March
2026.
[17] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
[17.1] The application for leave to appeal is refused.
[17.2] The applicant for leave to appeal is ordered to pay the costs of the
application on the scale as between attorney and client, which costs
are to include the costs of counsel on scale C.
_____________________________
A MILLAR
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
7
HEARD ON: 8 MAY 2026
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 18 MAY 2026
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT
IN THE APPEAL: MR. SIPHUMA
INSTRUCTED BY: MNYENGEZA ATTORNEYS
REFERENCE: MR. MNYENGEZA
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
IN THE APPEAL: ADV. R VAN SCHALKWYK
INSTRUCTED BY: GOODES & CO ATTORNEYS
REFERENCE: MR. GOODES