15yrs later

had failed to lodge an obMection within the stipulated 2 days and neglected to apply for an extension. The Mudge said it seemed lodging an obMection was not what the appli cants contemplated ‘until they thought of a disingenuous way of bringing up the issue of a tacit partnership in the review application.

The procedure and time limits within which the decision of the master of the High &ourt may be reviewed is provided for in Section

of the Administration of (state Act 1o.2 of 02.

It states that any person including the ex ecutor aggrieved by any such direction by the master or by a refusal of the master to sustain an obMection so lodged, may apply by motion to the High &ourt within 30 days after such direction or refusal or within such further period as the master may on request allow or within such further period as the High &ourt may allow for an order to set aside the master¶s decision and the court may make such orders as it may think fit.

OBJECTION

-udge Mavuso said by failing to lodge an obMection, as required by the Act, the curt is of the considered view that the applicants waived their right to approach the court on review.

“In terms of Section bis of the Adminis tration of (states Act, a party must apply to this court within 30 days of the direction or refusal by the master of an act complained of. The High &ourt, depending on the rea sons, may extend the 30 day period allowed for an order to set aside the Master¶s deci sion,´ said the Mudge.

-udge Mavuso stated that the applicants failed to apply for an extension of time within which to file a review application.

The applicants, Marcella and Thulie, were represented by 5odrigues and Associates At torneys. The respondents were represented by 1.(. *inind]a Attorneys, 5obinson %er tram and the attorney general.