Justin Pearce
A CIVIL suit against the African National Congress, Nelson Mandela and Cyril Ramaphosa arising from last year’s Shell House shootings has been stalled on the grounds that the applicant’s arguments were too vague.
Masele Ndlovu, whose husband was shot dead in Johannesburg on March 28 1994, has brought the suit to seek compensation for the loss of support which she and her children have suffered as a result of her husband’s death.
She seeks damages against six defendants: the ANC; Mandela in his capacity as president of South Africa; Mandela in his personal capacity; Ramaphosa in his capacity as ANC secretary general; the Minister of Safety and Security; and General Calitz of the South African Police Services.
Calitz and the Minister of Safety and Security, represented by the State Attorney, have already filed responses to the suit.
However, lawyers acting for the ANC, Mandela and Ramaphosa argued that parts of Ndlovu’s lawyers’ argument were, in legal terms, “vague and embarrassing” — in other words, the defence could not pinpoint what accusations they had to answer.
Ndlovu’s lawyers ignored a request by the defence to clarify the problem areas, so defence went to the Transvaal Supreme Court to seek an exception — in effect, an order by the court that the suit be
This exception was granted, and Ndlovu’s lawyers now have 21 days to file a new application which clarifies the ambiguities in the original.
The judgment pays particular attention to the lack of clarity concerning who is alleged to be responsible for the death of Ndlovu’s husband: ANC members or members of the SAPS.
It also points to a lack of clarity on the alleged liability of Mandela (in his ANC capacity) and Ramaphosa, saying that proof of this would require a more detailed allegation.