Keele v Van Rensburg and Others (2021-64337) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1354 (17 December 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 1354 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Keele v Van Rensburg and Others (2021-64337) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1354 (17 December 2025) Keele v Van Rensburg and Others (2021-64337) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1354 (17 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1354.html sino date 17 December 2025 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 2021-64337 (1)      REPORTABLE: (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: (3)      REVISED: DATE 17/12/2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between: DR. MOTHOBI GODFREY KEELE Applicant and MAGISTRATE MRS. JANINE JANSEN VAN RENSBURG First Respondent DR. MBALI ZAMATHIYANE KEELE Second Respondent TAXING MASTER, HIGH COURT (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)                                                                      Third Respondent JUDGMENT THIS JUDGMENT IS HANDED DOWN REMOTELY AND WILL BE CIRCULATED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY. WELGEMOED, AJ [1]     This is an opposed application that was set down for hearing on the opposed motion roll for 24 November 2025 and heard on 27 November 2025, wherein I reserved judgment. The Applicant sought the following relief: “ 1.   Declaring that since no exceptional circumstances were specified by Court, the provisions of Section 18(1) of Act 10 of 2013 are for all intents and purposes in relation to ("iro") suspension of "operation" of a "decision" that is the subject of an application for leave to appeal and suspension makes no exceptions for taxation; 2. Declaring that a common law position that "a judgement procured by fraud of one of the parties, whether by forgery, perjury, or any other way such as the fraudulent withholding of documents, cannot stand" applies to the Second Respondent; 3. Declaring that mens rea is established by direct personal knowledge of the Second Respondent of the material averments that were traversed in the founding affidavit under Case No. 64337/21 at para 62 to para 63 iro an affidavit of 9 October 2020, para 73.2.2 iro an affidavit of 2 December 2020, and para 85 to para 85.2.1 iro an affidavit of 24 May 2021 which all complied with Regulations 1 to 4 of the Regulations to Act 16 of 1963. 4. Direct the Third Respondent to suspend taxation of the Bill of Costs at the instance of the Second Respondent on 26 November 2024 or thereabouts pending an outcome of this application and/or an application for leave to appeal that is lodged with the Constitutional Court. 5. Granting of costs in the event of opposition of the sought relief.” [2]      The relief sought correctly suggests that the application has a protracted history and is opposed by the Second Respondent. [3]      Litigation under this case number originated with an urgent application brought by the Applicant by Notice of Motion dated 19 January 2022 to review and set aside orders of the First Respondent dismissing the Applicant's recusal application against her, and the Applicant's application to stay divorce proceedings in the Regional Court. The Applicant's urgent application was dismissed by Bam J on 1 February 2022, and thereafter heard on the normal roll by Lukhaimane AJ on 5 October 2022 who dismissed the Applicant's review application, furnishing her reasons therefore on the 9th of November 2022. REQUEST FOR POSTPONMENT [4]      On 21 November 2025, I received an email from my Registrar that contained a notice of removal from the Applicant, who in these proceedings appear in person. The just of the request for removal being that the Applicant was unable to file his heads of argument in the application. [5]      It goes without saying that such an email is highly irregular and inappropriate. In response this Court informed the parties to address the issue in Court on 24 November 2025. [6]      The Applicant persisted with its attempt to remove and postpone the matter due to the failure to file its heads of argument timeously. Due to the protracted history of the matter, I refused to postpone the application and the Applicant was directed to file its heads of argument. With the further directive issued that the application will be heard on 27 November 2025. [7]      The Applicant proceeded to file its heads of argument on 26 November 2025 and the application was argued on 27 November 2025. BACKGROUND & MERITS OF APPLICATION [8]      From the papers the following factual events are evident and common cause between the parties. The matter stems from the divorce action instituted in 2019, for which a final divorce order was granted in 2024. The taxation sought to be set aside relates to Lukhaimane AJ’s costs order of 2022 which was taxed in 2024.  The order reads as follows: “ 32.    The Applicant has failed to make out a case for the recusal of the First Respondent from case number 1848/2019 in the Regional Court, Randburg. 33.     In the result, I make the following order: 1. The application is dismissed with costs.” [9]      Furthermore, Lukhaimane AJ’s order was subjected to an application for leave to appeal dismissed by the High Court, SCA and Constitutional Court on 25 March 2025 and a Rule 48 review initiated by the Applicant, which was dismissed by this court in August 2025, no an appeal has been lodged against this order. [10]     Taking the above facts into consideration, the relief sought in this application appears to be non-sensical and of little benefit to the Applicant on the mere reading thereof. [11]    The Second Respondent further correctly oppose the application on the ground of res judicata. [12]    The principles underlying the doctrine of res judicata were explained in the judgment of Cameron J in Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Ltd v Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Others 2020 (1) SA 327 (CC) as follows: "The doctrine of res judicata has ancient roots as an implement of justice. It seeks to protect litigants and the courts from never-ending cycles of litigation. Its strict terms applied when a later dispute involve the same party, seeking the same relief, relying on the same cause of action ... ... But the doctrine's roots lay in good sense and fairness. This demanded wider application, that barred repeat cycles of litigation on less stringent exaction of the 'same cause of action' requirement ...” [13]    The Applicant's objection to the taxation of the bill of costs has been disposed of by a judgment of this Court, under Rule 48 review proceedings. The judgment of Millar J dated 18 August 2025 has not been appealed by the Applicant and is final in effect. Wherefore the Applicant cannot succeed with prayer one and four of its notice of motion. The issues have been finally determined by a competent Court of law. [14]    The Applicant seeks a declarator in prayer two and three of the notice of motion of intention of knowledge of wrongdoing on the part of the Second Respondent pertaining to paragraphs 62 and 63 of his founding affidavit under this case number. These paragraphs relate to the Second Respondent's comment on the Applicant's remarks of the 5th of September 2019 intimating that the Applicant should dig two graves if she intends on divorcing him - one grave being for herself. [15]    This is an issue that was dealt with in the divorce proceedings. The divorce court received evidence of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the purported abuse of the Applicant was canvassed and consequently granted a divorce order. The Applicant briefed Counsel to strike the trial from the roll, when this did not succeed, the Applicant's Counsel excused himself. The Applicant did not attend the trial, with the result that the evidence led by the Second Respondent was not contested by the Applicant during the trial. The divorce order was granted and there is no appeal against this order pending. [16]    It is clear that the material which the Applicant seeks this court to grant orders on has been litigated to finality. [17]    The application is ill conceived as it seeks to engage in a cyclical exercise of relitigating (i) Lukhaimane AJ's judgment on the merits (ii) Millar J's judgment on the validity of the taxation and (iii) issues which were tried in the divorce action - which the Applicant elected not to attend. This is precisely the type of litigation the principle of res judicata seeks to rebuff. ORDER [18]    Consequently, I make the following order: 1. The application is dismissed with costs on Scale B. WELGEMOED CJ ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Date of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date of Judgment: 17.12.2025 Counsel for Applicant:  In person Counsel for Respondent: KKM Mafungo sino noindex make_database footer start