• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

PDF In the High Court of South Africa

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2025

Membagikan "PDF In the High Court of South Africa"

Copied!
3
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

CCT NO: 231/14 SCA NO: 939/2013

CASE NO: LCC 80/2012 In the matter between:-

BAKGATLA-BA-KGAFELA COMMUNAL PROPERTY

ASSOCIATION APPLICANT

And

BAKGATLA-BA-KGAFELA TRIBAL AUTHORITY 1ST RESPONDENT

KGOSHI NYALALA MOLEFE JOHN PILANE 2ND RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CONDONATION APPLICATION

________________________________________________________

I, the undersigned,

TEBOGO ALBERT MPHAHLELE

do hereby make oath and state as follows:-

(2)

2

1.

I am:-

1.1 I am employed as a messenger at MOTHULOE ATTORNEYS and NOTARIES at no 20A ST. JOHN ROAD, HOUGHTON ESTATE

1.2 Knowledgeable on the facts herein set out which are to the best of my knowledge both true and correct save where I or the context suggest the contrary; and

1.3 Duly authorised to depose to this affidavit by virtue of my abovementioned office.

2.

I have read the Opposing Affidavit by CHRISPEN MACHINGURA, the Attorney employed at our firm and confirm the contents therein as being true and correct insofar as they relate to me.

3.

I confirm that due to personal problems at home, I forgot to file the said papers.

(3)

3

4.

I apologise the above Honourable Court for the delay I have caused by not serving and filing the Notice of Intention to Oppose.

___________________________

DEPONENT

THUS SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me at _____________________ on this the _______ day of ____________________ 2015 by the deponent who acknowledges that he/she knows and understands the contents of this affidavit; that it is the truth to the best of his/her knowledge and belief and that he/she has no objection to taking the prescribed oath and regards the same as binding on his/her conscience and the administration of the oath complied with the Regulations contained in Government Gazette No. R1258 of 21 July 1972, as amended.

___________________________

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS:

EX OFFICIO:

FULL NAMES:

PHYSICAL ADDRESS:

DESIGNATION:

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

Not only was the SCA wrong in finding a “predatory intent” on the part of the Applicant, but the SCA should have held that in protecting and promoting the Applicant’s constitutional

In terms of section 604 of the Act, I am entitled to refuse to release the appellants on bail from custody in the interests of justice if one or more of the following grounds are

However, due to the volume of the record and the complexity of the various interlocutory applications that are interwoven in this application for leave to appeal, my senior counsel had

Date : 6 January 2005 REPORTABLE Case number: 21056/2004 In the matter between MAPULE KEKANA PLAINTIFF and THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT Default judgment – action for damages –

CASE NO: 111/11 In the matter between: MATHILDA LOUISE WIESE Appellant and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES First Respondent PENSION FUND THE MINISTER OF FINANCE Second Respondent THE

[8] In so far as enticement is concerned, the following was stated by Kannemeyer J in Gower v Killian 19772 SA 393E at 395: “It must be shown that the defendant coaxed the plaintiff’s

He also did not enquire into the chief Interpreter's conclusion that the record showed "an alarmingly poor performance by the Interpreter." Furthermore, no reasons are given for the

The section 291a right to education sought to be asserted on behalf of the learners is enforceable as against the State but does not entail a right to demand that such education be