The bone of contention emanates from the statement by Babhekile Gugu Dlamini that "I am well versed with the facts of the matter". The question which remains unanswered is how did she come to acquire such facts? Was it through the instructions she received from the respondents or through her handling of the matter.
In this case we are dealing with a respondent who is an artificial person. In such a case there is judicial precedent for holding that objection may be taken if there is nothing before the court to show that the applicant has duly authorised the institution of Notice of Motion proceedings. See the case of ROYAL WARCESTOR CORCEL V KESLER STORES 1927 C.P.D. 143.
Unlike an individual, an artificial person can only function through its agents and it can only take its decisions by the passing of a resolution in the manner provided by its constitution. An attorney instructed to commence notice of motion proceedings by, say, the secretary of a company would not necessarily know whether the company had resolved to do so, nor whether the necessary formalities had been complied with in regard to the passing of a resolution. It is clear therefore that in the case of an artificial person there is more room for mistakes to occur and less reason to presume that it is properly before court or that proceedings which pinpoint to be brought in its name have in fact been authorised by it.
The best evidence that the proceedings have been properly authorised would be provided by an affidavit made by an official of the company annexing a copy of the resolution. I however, do not consider such proof to be necessary in every case. Each case must be considered on its merit. The court must decide whether enough has been placed before it