4.4. At no stage has this been an issue to either us as members of Applicant or other members of the public and the authorities that we have dealt with in the past It will therefore be
absurd to conclude that the communication was never intended for the Applicant but for Inkhanyeti Yekusa Farmers Association.
 When the point of law in limine came for arguments Mr. Dunseith added a further point of law in limine that the Applicant cannot produce an environmental compliance certificate and therefore it is not entitled to the relief sought.
 The issues for determination presently, therefore is firstly whether the Applicant has locus standi to launch the present application. Secondly, the issue of the application to strike out the new evidence in Applicant's replying affidavit to establish locus standi and the third issue is that of the environmental compliance certificate. It appears to me that the issue of the application to strike out paragraph 4 of the replying affidavit ought to be addressed first and then the issue of locus standi.
 It was contended on behalf of the Respondents that in so far as the Applicant seeks to lead new evidence in its replying affidavit to establish its locus standi, this evidence should be struck out. In this regard the Court was referred to the legal authority in Herbstein & Van Winsen, The Civil Practice of the Supreme Court of South Africa, 4th ed at 364 and 366 to the effect that necessary allegations must appear in the supporting affidavits, for the Court will not, save in exceptional circumstances, allow the Applicant to make or supplement his case in his replying affidavit, and will order any matter appearing in it that should have been in the supporting affidavits to be struck out (see Coffee, Tea & Chocolate Co. Ltd vs Cape Trading Co. 1930 CPD 81 at 82).
 Mr. Masuku for the Applicant argued on this point that loci standi became an issue in Respondents affidavit and the Applicant therefore was obliged to give an explanation. He relied on what is said by the authors Herbstein et al at page 365 where the following appears:
"If, however, the new matter in the replying affidavits is in answer to a defence raised by the Respondent and is not such that it should have been included in the supporting