African Cellurar (Pty) Ltd and Another v Firstmile Prop JHB Crown Mines (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/070849) [2024] ZAGPJHC 605 (28 June 2024)

African Cellurar (Pty) Ltd and Another v Firstmile Prop JHB Crown Mines (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/070849) [2024] ZAGPJHC 605 (28 June 2024)

The court found that, even if urgency exists, it is not sufficient to justify a Friday hearing. The respondents have not been given a fair opportunity to file an opposing affidavit. The applicants' attorney may set the matter down at a later date if urgency is established. The matter is accordingly removed from the roll and costs are awarded against the applicants.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 605
Parties
Applicant: African Cellurar (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Wajahat Choudary; Respondent: Firstmile Prop JHB Crown Mines (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Take Shape Property Management (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2024
Case Number
2024/070849
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Spoliation Relief; Opposed, Respondents Not Yet Filed Affidavit
Outcome
Application removed from the roll; costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Urgent Interdict, Possession of Premises
Civil Procedure Land and Property Spoliation Urgent Interdict Possession of Premises

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

African Cellurar (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Wajahat Choudary

Applicant

Firstmile Prop JHB Crown Mines (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Take Shape Property Management (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Spoliation Relief; Opposed, Respondents Not Yet Filed Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to urgent spoliation relief for alleged deprivation of possession of the shop.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is sufficiently urgent to warrant a Friday hearing.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have been afforded a fair opportunity to file an opposing affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, even if urgency exists, it is not sufficient to justify a Friday hearing. The respondents have not been given a fair opportunity to file an opposing affidavit. The applicants' attorney may set the matter down at a later date if urgency is established. The matter is accordingly removed from the roll and costs are awarded against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application removed from the roll; costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The matter is removed from the roll.
  • The applicants are jointly and severally to pay the respondents’ costs.