Booysen and Another v Van Eeden N.O and Others (59810/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 656 (16 September 2021)

Booysen and Another v Van Eeden N.O and Others (59810/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 656 (16 September 2021)

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the raised threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The points in limine raised by the first respondent could not be determined without reference to the merits, and the facts did not support granting interim relief. The first applicant lacked locus standi as an interested party in the deceased estate, as the relevant order had not been confirmed by the Constitutional Court. The second applicant was not properly before the court, having withdrawn and tendered wasted costs. The discovery of a nil balance in the estate bank account did not constitute grounds for interim relief. The judgment did not...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 656
Parties
Applicant: Estelle Booysen; Applicant: Estemari Booysen; Respondent: Jacobus Cornelius Van Eeden N.O; Respondent: Jacobus Cornelius Van Eeden; Respondent: Charl Van Bruggen Attorneys; Respondent: The Master of the High Court of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2021
Case Number
59810/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Tlhapi VV
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Standard, Locus Standi, Administration of Estates Act, Urgent Application Struck Off Roll
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Standard Locus Standi Administration of Estates Act Urgent Application Struck Off Roll

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Estelle Booysen

Applicant

Estemari Booysen

Applicant

Jacobus Cornelius Van Eeden N.O

Respondent

Jacobus Cornelius Van Eeden

Respondent

Charl Van Bruggen Attorneys

Respondent

The Master of the High Court of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the first applicant has locus standi to bring the application.
  3. 3 Whether the second applicant was properly before the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the raised threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The points in limine raised by the first respondent could not be determined without reference to the merits, and the facts did not support granting interim relief. The first applicant lacked locus standi as an interested party in the deceased estate, as the relevant order had not been confirmed by the Constitutional Court. The second applicant was not properly before the court, having withdrawn and tendered wasted costs. The discovery of a nil balance in the estate bank account did not constitute grounds for interim relief. The judgment did not...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.