Important Email Correspondence

Urgent Letter to the High Court – 11 August 2025

From: Jan Hendrik Stephanus Venter
Date: 11 August 2025

Your Lordship,

I write as a matter of extreme urgency in respect of my two matters set down for hearing on 12 August 2025:

Venter and Venter v Banks and Credit Bureaus – Case No: 2025-129687 – scheduled for 12 August 2025, 12:00 am (Office of the Chief Justice – Review Evidence Update Case).
Venter v Phosa, Small-Smith, and Van Der Bank – Case No: 2025-129695 – scheduled for 12 August 2025, 12:00 am (Office of the Chief Justice).

I am a layperson acting in my personal capacity, without legal representation, despite exhausting all possible avenues for assistance — including Legal Aid, which has declined to assist me. I have done everything within my means to comply with the rules of this Honourable Court, including making every effort to upload my documents and evidence to Caselines. My extensive correspondence with the Registrar’s office and your secretary over the weekend, and in prior days, demonstrates my commitment to following proper process.

I served my documents on 4 August 2025, yet the respondents only served their replies and notices at the end of business on Friday, 8 August 2025. This deliberate delay — four days after my service and mere business hours before a weekend — leaves me with virtually no time to consider and prepare responses before the hearing. Given my self-represented status, this tactic amounts to a calculated abuse of the legal process, intended to ambush and disadvantage me.

This Honourable Court cannot allow such procedural ambushes, particularly against a layperson. Section 34 of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to have their dispute resolved by a court in a fair public hearing. That right is hollow if a litigant without legal training is subjected to deliberate procedural manoeuvres by represented parties.

South African jurisprudence supports the Court’s duty to actively protect the fairness of proceedings for self-represented litigants. In Moela v Minister of Police (2017) and Mkhize v Standard Bank (2013), the courts intervened where procedural disadvantage threatened fairness. Internationally, courts have held that self-represented litigants must not be prejudiced by technicalities, especially when the opposing parties are legally represented and aware of the imbalance.

These matters also involve high-profile political figures and legal practitioners. I am deeply concerned that the influence or standing of these individuals should not — and must not — sway the impartiality or courage of the court in enforcing the law without fear, favour, or prejudice.

I respectfully request the following, urgently:
- Formal recognition of my in-person, self-represented status, and the procedural protection it entails.
- Immediate consideration of the prejudice caused by the respondents’ late filing, with appropriate remedies, including condonation refusals or directives to safeguard my fair hearing.
- An assurance that no procedural or substantive prejudice will be allowed to occur on 12 August 2025 due to my lay status or the profile of the respondents.

My repeated attempts since 9 August 2025 to obtain guidance and protection from court officials — including emails to your secretary and other officers — have been in good faith and in full compliance with my duties as a litigant. I now turn to you directly for urgent judicial intervention.

Yours faithfully,
Jan Hendrik Stephanus Venter
ID Number: 7607095034083
Pretoria, Gauteng
Email: jivenventer902@gmail.com
          

Email to Mr. Molebogeng Raseroka – 11 August 2025

From: Jan Venter <janventer902@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 8:24 AM
To: MRaseroka@judiciary.org.za
Subject: URGENT – Request for Judicial Protection & Directions – Self-Represented Litigant – Cases Set for 12 August 2025

To: The Honourable Senior Judge of the High Court, Pretoria
Jan Venter
MRaseroka@judiciary.org.za; +5 others

To:
The Honourable Senior Judge – High Court, Pretoria
The Honourable Judge President – Gauteng Division of the High Court
The Honourable Deputy Judge President – Gauteng Division of the High Court

From:
Jan Hendrik Stephanus Venter
Date: 11 August 2025

Your Lordships,

I address you with urgency in respect of my matters set down for hearing on 12 August 2025:

Venter and Venter v Banks and Credit Bureaus – Case No: 2025-129687 – 12 August 2025 (Office of the Chief Justice – Review Evidence Update Case).
Venter v Phosa, Small-Smith, and Van Der Bank – Case No: 2025-129695 – 12 August 2025 (Office of the Chief Justice).

1. Self-Representation and Abuse of Process

I am a layperson representing myself. Legal Aid has declined to assist me. I served my documents on 4 August 2025. The respondents only served their replies and notices at the end of business on Friday, 8 August 2025, leaving me, as an unrepresented party, with virtually no time to prepare for the hearing. This is a deliberate procedural ambush and an abuse of process, contrary to the principles of fairness under section 34 of the Constitution.

2. Request for Remote Hearing via Microsoft Teams

I place on record that I have explicitly requested that these matters be heard via Microsoft Teams and not in open court or at the court building, for the following reasons:
- There have been six attempts on my life since 2014.
- I have previously been in witness protection.
- Attending physically would place my life at risk.

I have also requested that the matters be determined on the papers, as permitted by the Uniform Rules of Court:
- Rule 38(2): The court may, with the consent of the parties or if special circumstances exist, order that evidence be given by affidavit or via video link.
- Rule 39(11): The court may order that any matter be determined without oral evidence and solely on the documents filed.

These provisions empower this Honourable Court to order a remote or paper-based hearing where the safety of a litigant or the interests of justice so require. My circumstances clearly qualify as “special circumstances” under these Rules.

3. Time and Effort Invested

As a non-lawyer, I have spent over two weeks preparing my documents and uploading them to Caselines in strict compliance with the court’s directions. Despite this, it now appears that technicalities are being sought to prevent my cases from being heard on their merits. This is contrary to the judgments in Moela v Minister of Police (2017) and Mkhize v Standard Bank (2013), where courts intervened to prevent procedural disadvantage to self-represented litigants.

4. Perception of Bias

These cases involve high-profile political figures and large corporate interests. I am concerned that the court may be affording them procedural advantage, whether intentionally or unintentionally, instead of ensuring equal access to justice for an ordinary citizen. The court must be, and be seen to be, fearless in applying the law without fear, favour, or prejudice.

5. Call from Judge’s Secretary

This morning at 08:47, I received a call from your secretary from the number 012 492 6792. The tone of the call suggested annoyance with my repeated attempts to secure protection and procedural clarity. I record my concern that a litigant should never be made to feel that their urgent safety and fairness concerns are an inconvenience to the court.

6. Relief Requested

I respectfully and urgently request:
- That these matters be heard via Microsoft Teams or, alternatively, determined on the papers in terms of Uniform Rule 39(11).
- Recognition of my self-represented status and active judicial measures to prevent prejudice.
- Remedial steps to address the prejudice caused by the respondents’ 8 August 2025 late filing.
- Written assurance that my cases will be heard fairly, without bias or influence from the profile or standing of the respondents.

I have acted in good faith and in compliance with all court processes. I now turn to you for the judicial protection that every South African is entitled to under the Constitution and the Uniform Rules of Court.

Yours faithfully,
Jan Hendrik Stephanus Venter
ID: 7607095034083
Pretoria, Gauteng
Email: jivenventer902@gmail.com
          

Email from Dirk Bakker (SNB Attorneys) – 10 August 2025

From: Dirk <dirk@dmbakker.co.za>
Sent: 10 August 2025 13:21
To: info@inquiry.org.za
Cc: Dirk Bakker <dirk@snbattorneys.co.za>; info@bidvestbank.co.za; safps@safps.co.za; info@fsca.co.za; disputeinfo@transunion.co.za; admin@experian.co.za; data_admin@compuscan.co.za; Admin@xds.co.za; Patrick Bracher <Patrick.Bracher@nortonrosefulbright.com>; royr@safps.org.za
Subject: JHS VENTER & ANOTHER // BIDVEST BANK LTD & OTHERS: URGENT APPLICATION : CASE NUMBER 2025-129687 : 2ND RESPONDENT'S ANSWERING AFFIDAVIT

[External Email – Use Caution]

Dear Sirs

We refer to the above matter and confirm that we act on behalf of and on instructions from Absa Bank Ltd (“our client”).

We served our client’s Notice of Intention to Oppose on Friday the 8th of August 2025 at 15h50 and we have been instructed by our client to serve an unsigned copy of our client’s Answering Affidavit upon you today.

Our client’s signed Answering Affidavit will be served upon you tomorrow morning and we will upload the signed Answering Affidavit to CourtOnline.

You are kindly and urgently requested to confirm if the application has been opened and transferred to CaseLines and to provide us with the necessary invite to CaseLines at any or all of the following email addresses:

dirk@dmbakker.co.za;
dirk@snbattorneys.co.za; and
michelle@dmbakker.co.za

Kindly acknowledge receipt of this email letter and answering affidavit.

Kind regards,

DIRK BAKKER
SNB ATTORNEYS
Personal e-mail: dirk@dmbakker.co.za
E-mail: dirk@snbattorneys.co.za
TEL: (011) 763 1592 FAX: (011) 760 2927

143 Ontdekkers Road, Horison Park, Roodepoort, 1724
PO Box 21224 Helderkruin, 1733

Confidentiality Note: This e-mail from SNB ATTORNEYS is privileged and confidential and for the use of the addressee only. Should you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us by replying to the sender directly and delete the e-mail. Unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of the contents of this e-mail or any attachments, or any similar action, is prohibited.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is intended for the addressee only, is privileged and confidential and unauthorised dissemination or copying is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us immediately and please destroy the original message. Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc and its affiliates reserve the right to monitor all email communications through their networks.
          

Letter to Judge Mogale AJ via Nyameka Mhlaba – Draft

From: Jan Venter
To: NyMhlaba@judiciary.org.za
Subject: Case 2025-129687 - Request to Proceed Despite Technical Issues

The Honourable Judge Mogale AJ
High Court of South Africa
Gauteng Local Division, Pretoria
Via: Ms Nyameka Mhlaba (Secretary) – Email: NyMhlaba@judiciary.org.za

From:
Jan Hendrik Stephanus Venter
ID: 7607095034083
Pretoria, South Africa, 0084
Date: [Insert Date]

Case Number: 2025-129687

Honourable Judge Mogale AJ,

I write to you respectfully as the Applicant in this matter and as a layperson without legal training or representation.

On 09 August 2025, I received the Court’s directives dated 08 August 2025. I have done my utmost best to comply with these directives. I have uploaded to Caselines all documents and evidence I was able to recover and prepare, to the best of my ability, and within the time constraints given.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I have the financial means to appoint an attorney or advocate. I have approached the Legal Aid Board for assistance, but my request for representation was declined.

I am concerned that if my matter is struck from the roll for reasons of technical non-compliance — despite my genuine efforts — this will amount to a denial of my constitutional right to access the courts, as protected by Section 34 of the Constitution. I submit that the Court should consider that not all litigants have legal qualifications, resources, or institutional backing.

I respectfully ask that the Court:
- Take into account my position as a self-represented layperson;
- Consider that I have complied as far as was reasonably possible for me;
- Allow my matter to proceed to be heard on its merits rather than be dismissed on technical grounds.

I trust the Honourable Court will uphold the principle that justice must be accessible to all, not only those who can afford legal practitioners.

Yours faithfully,
Jan Hendrik Stephanus Venter

PS: I will sign the affidavits tomorrow Sunday 10/08/2025 and upload them with additional affidavits also. I requested the case to be heard on papers not in person due to security reasons as set out.