Sibanda v Affinity Health Insurance (046976/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 940 (11 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 940 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Sibanda v Affinity Health Insurance (046976/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 940 (11 September 2025) Sibanda v Affinity Health Insurance (046976/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 940 (11 September 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_940.html sino date 11 September 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : 046976/2023 DATE : 2025-09-04 (1) REPORTABLE: NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO. (3) REVISED: YES DATE 11 /9/2025 In the matter between NKOSINATHI OSTA SIBANDA Applicant and AFFINITY HEALTH INSURANCE Respondent JUDGMENT FISHER, J : In the matter of Nkosinathi Osta Sibanda this judgm ent is given ex tempore on the 4 th of September 2025 .The application before me purports be an application in terms of rule 28 of the Uniform Rules of Court. I t represents the latest in a barrage of stillborn proceedings which have been brought by the applicant for relief, Mr Sibanda, against Affinity Health Insurance, who I will call AHI. Mr Sibanda alleges that he was a client of A HI for i ts product which , inter alia, allows for l imited insurance cover for health care. The i s referred to as policy document of 2021 / 04 / 07 with policy PX 0[…] . This is allegedly the policy document in issue. Mr Sibanda alleges he was attacked in an armed robbery which took place on 11 June 2022 and injured. The injury was to his right index finger. At the time he was employed as a security guard. He obtained t reatment for the injury but he alleges that there was a breach of the policy. It seems that his contention is that A HI did not give the necessary cover that his injury deserved under the policy. This breach, i t is alleged, led to a deterioration in his injury to the f inger and ult imately to its amputation. This he alleges as left him unemployed and unemployable as a security guard. For this he claims on various basis and with reference to his pleadings, such as they are, i t can be discerned that the damages are both contractual and delictual in nature. The procedure adopted by Mr Sibanda has involve d a hybrid of the action and application procedures. The consistent feature of these ple adings is that he makes three claims. Claim 1 i s pleaded as follows: “ The first defendant is in pure malice, breach of contract and negligent of the plaintiff, in life threatening emergency and defamatory of plaintiff name, due to unlawful action of first defendant damages by plaintiff sum of R 500 000 as a result of first defendant actions.” Claim 2 i s pleaded as follows: “ Due to pain and suffering I went to specialist at Cento Care Hospital and the doctor said I must be amputated because i t is too late to save the finger. Due to lack of funds and unreasonable delays for hospitalisation, I went to Tembisa Public Hospital and I was told by the doctor that the damage is worse, I must be admitted on for amputation.” The import of these allegations is that the failure of AHI to comply with the terms of the policy caused the amputation. This, in turn, he appears to allege, caused his loss of employment. The loss suffered under this claim is in amount which i s variously stated to be a R 1 - million and a R 100 000 . Claim 3 i s stated as follows: “ Due to selfish greedy and self - interest to secure profit . The second defendant f raudulently drafted a new policy document and claim that i s the original contract of 2023 / 01 which i s totally gross f raudulent and violation of contract laws and agreement.” Mr Sibanda then claims that he is entitled, in terms of this claim, for payment under wh at he contends is the original policy of R 522 000 for “ accident disability ” . AHI, has for some years been faced with this hybrid process and a lack of adherence by Mr Sibanda to even the most basic procedures and protocol. I t has, i t seems to me, t r ied its best to accommodate and navigate the processe s filed. Mr Sibanda has indiscriminately caused pleading s and notices to be removed and uploaded randomly and a s his whim takes him. This Court is faced with a morass of documents which run to more than 1 300 pages and in respect of which, i t must be said, that not one document f i led by Mr Sibanda has any cogency or legitimacy. Some of the pleadings have been uploaded no less than three t imes. On 5 July 2023 A HI served a notice in terms of rules 30 and 30 ( A) to remove causes of complaints. The next day, on 6 July 2023 , Mr Sibanda f i led, what h e described as a “ supplementary founding affidavit” but failed to remove the causes for complaints. On the same day Mr Sibanda f i led a second “ supplementary founding affidavit”, still failing to remove the cause of complainant. On 2 August 2023 the respondent brought an application in terms of rule 30 and 30(A) to strikeout the applicant’s pleadings. The application was heard in the interlocutory court roll on 21 August 2023 before Manoim J. The Court postponed the matter sine die for the applicant to obtain the services of a legal representative and gave Mr Sibanda 30 days to do so, failing which it was indicated that A HI could enrol the matter on the unopposed roll. This t reatment of Manoim J of the matter has apparently led to Mr Sibanda reporting Manoim J for alleged misconduct. The applicant did not appoint attorneys but on 11 October he filed yet a further process which he termed: “ Notice of removal of all plaintiff ’ s filed documents in this action”. The notice further stated that: “ The summons will be correctly reissued as required by rules of this court.” The intention of Mr Sibanda i s not clear f rom this notice. AHI assumed that he meant that the hybri d summons/ application process had been withdrawn and that the process would commence afresh by way of the issue of a new summons. This was a reasonable assumption. However on 2 November 2023 Mr Sibanda filed further process under the heading: “Reissue of amended initiating documents.” under the same case number as the original summons. This relaunching was similarly hybrid in that i t still purports to be both an application and an action. A HI has, i t appears, attempted to navigate this unwieldy process on the basis that i t has sought to bring the matter to some s emblance of order so that the norm al process can take their course. After filing by Mr Sibanda of a process purportedl y in terms of rule 34 ( A), which is totally anomalous in the context of this already aberrant procedural morass adopted by Mr Sibanda and on 5 December 2023 A HI f i led a notice intention to oppose Mr Sibanda’ s rule 34 application together with an answering affidavit. On 15 August 2024 the rule 34 ( A) application , such as it was, was heard before Wilson J. The application was dismissed by Wilson J and the Court made the following observation in his judgment: “ The upshot of al l of this, I regret, is that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff today. I hope that he manages to obtain professional legal advice, which, on the facts of this case, seem to me to be available to him on a contingency basis. Nonetheless, there i s only so far a judge can go to assist a lay lit igant in the prosecution of a case that may or may have…, may not have merits. I have gone as far as I can.” AHI makes the point that Mr Sibanda lit igates f rom the EFF’ s head office in Marshall town and that he states the f ollowing in all the affidavits f i led by him: “ Where and whenever I make legal submissions, I do so on the advice of my legal team, which advice I accept as correct.” That is the history of the proceedings thus far as they emerge f rom the records before me. I move now to the application which serves before me which as I have said is an application in terms of rule 28 . I t has been difficult for me to come to grips with this matter due to the copious fil ings by Mr Sibanda over the years and in view of his refusal to file a practice note in the matter, which was his obligation. The respondents describe in their unilateral practice note the difficulties which have been experienced by them in obtaining his cooperation for this and other processes which have been brought against them. It is indicated in A HI’ s practice note that was f i led for these proceedings that when, on the occasion of a previous hearing, the attorneys initiated a pre - trial meeting with Mr Sibanda at which he presented as extremely belligerent and subsequently addressed an email to the attorneys with various accusations being made against them. Mr Sibanda has further more failed to cooperate in the drawing of the practice notes in these proceedings which has resulted in A HI having to f i le a unilateral note. During my hearing Mr Sibanda yesterday, he indicated that he wished to hand up documents which he said would make the arguing of the process clearer. I adjourned the proceedings until today ( the following day) and facilitated , through my registrar, the uploading of the documents on Case Lines for a full hearing, including the documents which were handed in. I expressed during argument that I would try to make sense of the papers overnight on the basis that I would try to render the unruly processes f i led into a workable process, working f rom the platform of the rule 28 process which served before me and my discretion under that rule. Alas, the state of the filings is such that this is impossible. I am thus faced with the rule 28 application to be determined on i ts terms. Mr Sibanda purportedly seeks to amend his particulars of claim in the reinstated process which he has unilaterally sought to bring into procedural being. In the notice of intention to amend, Mr Sibanda indicates that he wishes to amend his particulars of claim in the following manner: “ Take notice further that, the plaintiff in these action proceedings i s here to amend his particulars of claim by removing claim 1 and put claim 2 as the main claim 1 and claim 1 to be claim 3 and claim 3 to be claim 2 . ” This application to amend i s perplexing. Why the swopping round of the claims would be of any assistance to a procedural and substantive complex which seems , on the face of it , to be hopelessly and fundamentally ir regular, is not explained by Mr Sibanda. He addressed me at some length today on the fact that he wished that I accept the documents which he placed on record and which were uploaded with the assistance of my registrar yesterday, to be taken to be his summons. I explained to him that this was not a competent and that I was duty bound to deal with the application before me. Mr Sibanda was given every indulgence by this Court as he was in the courts before this court which have heard him and wh ich are mentioned above. It appears also that A HI and its legal representatives have, in the past, sought to lend some form to the processes which are devised by Mr Sibanda on the basis that he i s entitled to institute i r regular proceedings as and how he sees fit . This is clearly an impossible state of affairs. H e has demanded to be heard in these proceedings before me, notwithstanding, by his own admission, he has not complied with even the most rudimentary practice requirements which entitle him to a hearing. This application purportedly brought under rule 28 has no prospects of success and is i r regular on its face. Counsel for A HI makes the point that Mr Sibanda seems to believe he can operate with impunity. I agree. He has brought a nd continues to bring outlandish applications, even up until yesterday where he sought to place documents before me with no form or substance. The fact that Mr Sibanda has been met in successive hearings with a measure of accommodation due to his being a lit igant in person, has apparently contributed to his sense of impunity and entitlement. Whilst it is a laudatory feature of our constitution al democracy, and one jealously guarded by these courts, that persons who are unrepresented are encouraged to seek audience, largesse in accommodating unrepresented lit igants cannot be without all reason and on the basis that the judicial processes are allowed to be abused. AHI says this cannot go on. I t is called upon repeatedly to deal with i r regular proceeding upon ir regular proceedings to its own prejudice and significant cost. This is apparent f rom the copious record in this matter which i s on Case Lines. Mr Sibanda has reached the end of his accommodation by this court. The application i s without any basis or any purpose and falls to be dismissed. As to costs, I agree with counsel for AHI that i f Mr Sibanda i s not dissuaded f rom the course which he has embarked upon, at least with adverse cost implications, he will continue to launch proceedings which are devoid of any merit and on the face of them abusive of this court’ s processes to the prejudice of A HI. In these circumstances I make the following order: 1. The application to amend is dismissed. 2. Mr Sibanda i s to pay the costs of the application on scale B. FISHER , J JUDGE OF THE HIGH C OURT DAT E :11 September 20 25 sino noindex make_database footer start