Ramatsetse-Moloi v Shiremane and Others (2025-110223) [2025] ZAGPPHC 770 (1 August 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 770 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Ramatsetse-Moloi v Shiremane and Others (2025-110223) [2025] ZAGPPHC 770 (1 August 2025) Ramatsetse-Moloi v Shiremane and Others (2025-110223) [2025] ZAGPPHC 770 (1 August 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_770.html sino date 1 August 2025 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO.: 2025-110223 (1)    REPORTABLE: NO (2)    OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)    REVISED: NO Date:  1 August 2025 E van der Schyff In the matter between YVONNE KHOLOFELO RAMATSETSE-MOLOI                                     FIRST APPLICANT and MPUNA ELLEN SHIREMANE                                                            FIRST RESPONDENT PABALLO MAHLOSANE MOLOI                                                  SECOND RESPONDENT COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION                                                                                   THIRD RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY                                FOURTH RESPONDENT THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT                                               FIFTH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Van der Schyff J Introduction [1] The applicant approached the court for urgent relief. The facts of the matter are, however, peculiar in the sense that it is a second application instituted by the applicant following on the demise of Mr. Mpho Muntu Moloi. In the first application, she sought to be recognised as his customary law wife or partner. The first application was, however, seemingly abandoned, and the second was instituted on the basis that she is his customary law wife or partner. She seemingly succeeded in registering a customary law marriage after she instituted the first application and without the knowledge of the first and second respondents. A further conundrum in this matter is that the Master of the High Court issued two letters of executorship in the Estate Late M.M. Moloi. There is no indication that the applicant approached the Master to set aside the first letter of executorship. These aspects, in themselves, create difficulties for the applicant that can hardly be addressed in motion proceedings. [2] The first question to be determined, however, is whether the applicant made out a case for this application to be heard as an urgent application. The deceased passed away on 14 June 2024. The first respondent received an appointment as executor of the deceased's estate. However, the applicant fails to inform the court when she became aware of this appointment, which she now wants to set aside. She also fails to explain how she succeeded in obtaining a subsequent appointment as executrix in the same deceased estate without being appointed as co-executor, or with the first appointment being withdrawn. [3] The date on which she became aware of the appointment of the first respondent as executrix is essential for a party who wants to convince the court that an application should be dealt with on an urgent basis. [4] The applicant claims that the urgency arose on 25 June 2025 when she was informed that she needed to obtain a court order to remove the second respondent as the director of her ‘late husband’s company’. The applicant makes general, unsubstantiated averments that the second respondent’s directorship of the closed corporation, a juristic person not cited in these proceedings, causes ‘ongoing financial harm’. She fails to explain how the second respondent harms the close corporation. She further makes an unsubstantiated general statement that the first and second respondents will squander the assets of the business. [5] Counsel for the first and second respondents submitted that the application is not ripe for hearing, among others, due to the peculiarity caused by the existence of the two applications, and the first and second respondents’ view that the issue of the existence of the customary law marriage needs to be determined through review proceedings. I agree. [6] The same problems, however, is faced by the first and second respondents who issued a counter application. No case was made out why the counter application must be dealt with on an urgent basis, particularly in light of the fact that this court is not convinced that the Master of the High Court was first approached for relief. [7] The applicants and first and second respondents failed to make out a case that they will not be in a position to obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due course.  Each party is responsible for its own costs. ORDER In the result, the following order is granted: 1. The application is struck from the roll. 2. Each party is responsible for its own costs. E van der Schyff Judge of the High Court Delivered:  This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. In the event that there is a discrepancy between the date the judgment is signed and the date it is uploaded to CaseLines, the date the judgment is uploaded to CaseLines is deemed to be the date that the judgment is handed down. For the applicant:                                      Adv. B. Letuka Instructed by:                                           LEBO THAKADU INC. For the first and second respondents:        Adv. K. Maponya Instructed by:                                           AS CHILOANE ATTORNEYS Date of the hearing:                                   31 July  2025 Date of judgment:                                     1 August 2025 sino noindex make_database footer start