The judgment concerns an application by a former WARA EXCO member who sought declaratory and related relief after his removal from the committee. The court dealt with mootness, an amendment application, and a supplementary affidavit, and dismissed the main application with costs. The court also refused leave to amend and refused leave to admit the supplementary affidavit.
It may be relevant to matters involving mootness, declaratory relief under s 21(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act, and amendments in High Court proceedings.
Evidence from source
Summary : Mootness and the High Court’s discretion, as a court of first instance, to grant declaratory relief in terms of s 21(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Supports: The case concerns mootness and declaratory relief.
ORDER 1. The applicant’s application for leave to admit a supplementary affidavit is refused, with costs. 2. The applicant’s application for leave to amend the notice of motion is refused, with costs.
Supports: The court refused leave to admit the supplementary affidavit and refused the amendment application.
4. The main application is dismissed on account of mootness, with costs (including the respondents’ costs incurred in the application to strike out).
Supports: The main application was dismissed on account of mootness with costs.