Mogari v State Attorney (028709/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 980 (10 September 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 980 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Mogari v State Attorney (028709/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 980 (10 September 2025) Mogari v State Attorney (028709/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 980 (10 September 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_980.html sino date 10 September 2025 # IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO :  028709/2025 DATE :  12-08-2025 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO. (3) REVISED. DATE 10/9/2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between M MOGARI                                                                APPLICANT and STATE ATTORNEY                                                RESPONDENT JUDGMENT MAKHOBA, J :  The Court has listened to the applicant.  The applicant has cited 16 respondents and he referred to a document where there are date stamps of the presidency, some ministry as the return of service. It is clear that even if the Court were to grant this application due to a lack of service to all the respondents, the Court would not, that is problem number 1. He says he is an attorney.  I cannot dispute that but when one reads his notice of motion, I cannot make head or tail but what I can determine is that he wants this Court to interdict some proceedings in the Mahikeng High Court.  Why would this court sitting in Pretoria interdict a High Court in the North West.  I do not have jurisdiction to do that.  That is number 1. Number 2, he refers to part B, there is no part B in these papers.  There is a civil case, from what I can gather because the notice of motion as well as his affidavit, I cannot make head or tail of it. From what have gathered he has got a civil case in Mahikeng.  He does not go to Mahikeng High Court to stop whatever he wants to stop; he runs to Pretoria.  He does not properly serve everybody. I say excuse him for the sloppiness of the papers because he says he is an attorney; the papers are very sloppily drawn up but that is not the case. To make a proper case he must establish in his papers, an interdict has got requirements, why you want to interdict, without even informing other people.  He wants an interdict but he says he served them.  With an interdict you do not even serve those people.  You ask for an interdict and for a return date to serve them. Even if I wanted to assist him I would not because the requirements for an interdict is not covered in his affidavit.  I want to reiterate a civil case in Mafikeng, he talks about corruption, I do not know what corruption.  He did not make a proper case before me The matter is removed from the roll.  No order as to costs. MAKHOBA, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DATE :  ……………… sino noindex make_database footer start