- The court grants a final interdict forcing the family to disclose the brain-injured patient’s whereabouts and stop obstructing the curator bonis.
- The judge found threats of violence, refusal to cooperate with social workers and blocked medical care, which placed the vulnerable patient at risk.
• Interim curatrix ad personam appointed, and respondents ordered to allow relocation, assessments and treatment, with punitive costs awarded.
A family kept a severely brain-injured man out of reach of doctors, social workers and court-appointed caregivers, refusing to disclose his whereabouts and issuing threats against those trying to help him.
However, the High Court in Mafikeng has now granted urgent protection to curator bonis Ewan Carter Smith against Koketso Margret Balibi, Segaria Balibi and Advice Molusi, ordering them to cooperate and reveal the patient’s location.
Acting Deputy Judge President AH Petersen ruled that the patient’s welfare overrides every objection, stressing that “the paramount consideration in this matter is the patient’s best interests”. He granted sweeping interdicts to stop what he described as “obstruction, intimidation and unlawful interference with the work of the curator and medical team”.
The court appointed an interim curatrix ad personam, directed the respondents to cooperate fully with all assessments and relocation plans, and ordered costs on the punitive attorney and client scale. The judgment sends a blunt message that families cannot sideline court supervision when a vulnerable adult’s safety and care are at stake.
A child’s injury that became a lifelong disability
The patient was just five years old when he suffered a catastrophic traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle collision in Kuruman. Neurosurgical and psychological experts later confirmed permanent neuropsychological impairment. Years ago, another High Court declared him incapable of managing his own affairs, leading to Smith’s appointment as curator bonis.
However, when Smith attempted to trace and consult the patient, he repeatedly hit a wall. Judge Petersen recorded that the curator’s efforts were “systematically frustrated by the first, second, and third respondents”, preventing him from performing the very duties the court had assigned.
Threats and hostility toward officials
The court was particularly troubled by Molusi’s conduct. Although he purported to represent the family, he is not an admitted legal practitioner. The judgment reproduces an email warning the legal team that “whoever you are going to send near O[…] will not come back”.
Judge Petersen treated this as a direct threat to safety and described it as “hostility and threats directed at the court-appointed officials”. He added that the court “cannot countenance vigilantism or intimidation tactics that hinder the administration of justice and the protection of vulnerable persons”.
He also noted that where respondents fail to properly dispute allegations in motion proceedings, those allegations stand as fact.
Escalating behaviour and missed care
Reports from a social worker and an occupational therapist painted an increasingly worrying picture. The patient allegedly threatened other learners with a knife and required psychiatric supervision. Medical professionals recommended transfer to a specialist facility, but consent was refused.
Judge Petersen found that the respondents’ behaviour had moved “beyond mere non-cooperation to active obstruction that endangers the Patient and the public”. He said the history of violent outbursts “mandates professional supervision, which the respondents have clearly failed to provide”.
Repeated visits by professionals were blocked. At times, access was refused entirely. On other occasions, the patient’s identity could not even be confirmed, leaving officials unable to assess his condition or safety.
Best interests come first
When the family argued that earlier appointments were irregular and sought to stay the matter pending rescission proceedings, the court rejected the attempt.
Judge Petersen held that the relief sought was “not sustainable or capable of being granted” because there was no proper counterapplication before the court. Applying the interdict test, he found the curator had “a clear right to access the Patient”, that the concealment and threats constituted “a continuing injury”, and that no alternative remedy existed.
Judicial intervention, he concluded, was the only way to ensure the patient received care.
Wide-ranging protection order
The order compels the respondents to disclose the patient’s location within five calendar days and to allow officials to transport him to an appropriate medical or residential facility. An interim curatrix ad personam now has authority to arrange social, medical and psychological assessments and to authorise immediate treatment if necessary.
The respondents are barred from obstructing or threatening the curator, the curatrix ad litem, the curatrix ad personam, medical staff, sheriffs or police. Costs were awarded on the attorney and client scale, reflecting the court’s clear disapproval of their conduct.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
