Beeslaar and Another v Mokone and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 303; 2023/033278 (28 April 2023)

Beeslaar and Another v Mokone and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 303; 2023/033278 (28 April 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required for the matter to be heard in the urgent court. The applicants did not demonstrate that they would not be afforded substantial redress in due course if the application was heard in the ordinary course. The respondents had already undertaken not to proceed with building works until the renewal application was finalised, and any future prejudice could be addressed through appropriate legal channels. The applicants abused the urgent court process by seeking preferential treatment and providing the respondents with insufficient time to respond. The application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and a...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 303
Parties
Applicant: Vermaak Beeslaar; Applicant: Salome Beeslaar; Respondent: Mashoto Joseph Mokone; Respondent: Mbuyane Nokuthula Estelle Cassandra Mokone; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 April 2023
Case Number
2023/033278
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants on attorney and client scale.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Building Regulations, Abuse of Process, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgent Interdict Building Regulations Abuse of Process Interim Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vermaak Beeslaar

Applicant

Salome Beeslaar

Applicant

Mashoto Joseph Mokone

Respondent

Mbuyane Nokuthula Estelle Cassandra Mokone

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for urgent interim relief to halt building works meets the requirements of urgency.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants will suffer irreparable harm if the matter is not heard urgently.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants abused the urgent court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required for the matter to be heard in the urgent court. The applicants did not demonstrate that they would not be afforded substantial redress in due course if the application was heard in the ordinary course. The respondents had already undertaken not to proceed with building works until the renewal application was finalised, and any future prejudice could be addressed through appropriate legal channels. The applicants abused the urgent court process by seeking preferential treatment and providing the respondents with insufficient time to respond. The application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and a...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll with costs on an attorney and client scale.