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