THE
HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND
CIV.
CASE NO. 2367/2000
In
the matter between
MASTER
OF THE HIGH COURT APPLICANT
And
SIBONISO CLEMENT DLAMINI RESPONDENT
Coram S.B.
MAPHALALA - J
For
the Applicant MR. MKHATSHWA
For
the Respondent MR. S. DLAMINI
RULING
(22/02/2002)
In
this matter Mr. Mkhatshwa purports to appear for the Attorney General
who is on record the legal representative of the applicant in this
matter. He moved an application from the bar that the applicant be
granted leave to file a replying affidavit arguing that in other
courts that is a procedure which is followed. I must say on the onset
I was not convinced with this argument, as an applicant is entitled
to file a replying affidavit in motion proceedings as a matter of
course. Leave to file a replying affidavit only arise in opposed
applications for summary judgments after respondent has filed an
affidavit resisting summary judgment. It would have been
understandable if he were applying for condonation for the late
filing of a replying affidavit.
2
Further,
it would appear that Mr. Mkhatshwa has no loci standi to represent
the applicant in this matter and I agree in toto with the submissions
made by Mr. Dlamini for the respondent in this regard. Rule 16 (1) is
perfectly clear what the procedure is in such instances. The Rule
provides as follows:
"16
(1) if an attorney acts on behalf of any party in any proceedings, he
shall notify all other parties of his name and address".
In
casu, Mr Mkhatshwa proceeded roughshod, as it were, without filing a
proper notice of appointment in terms of the afore-mentioned Rule.
In
the result, the matter is struck off the roll with costs.
S.B.
MAPHALALA
JUDGE
