Branco and Another v Branco and Others; Branco and Another v Crouse and Another (018293/2022; 048805/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 963 (5 December 2022)

Branco and Another v Branco and Others; Branco and Another v Crouse and Another (018293/2022; 048805/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 963 (5 December 2022)

The court found that both applications failed to comply with the rules and practice manual governing urgent applications. The applicants had delayed in seeking relief, particularly regarding the interim interdict, as they were aware of the respondents' conduct for more than two months. The contempt application was not properly enrolled and was delayed pending another application. The court concluded that neither application was urgent and both should be struck off the roll. Costs were awarded against the applicants, including costs for the day of 29 November 2022.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 963
Parties
Applicant: Soraia Maria Pestana Branco; Applicant: Sonia Marissa Pestana Branco Augusto; Respondent: Carla Cristina Pestana Branco; Respondent: Carla Cristina Pestana Branco N.O.; Respondent: Andries van Jaarseveld N.O.; Respondent: Celina de Jusus Branco Auguso N.O; Respondent: The Master of the High Court Free State Division; Respondent: Jorge Manuel Pestana Branco Augusto; Respondent: Quilombo (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mautitus Crouse; Respondent: Tristan Branco
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2022
Case Number
018293/2022; 048805/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Struck Off the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Both applications struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
Twala M L
Legal Topics
Urgency, Contempt of Court, Interim Interdict, Practice Manual Compliance
Civil Procedure Urgency Contempt of Court Interim Interdict Practice Manual Compliance

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Soraia Maria Pestana Branco

Applicant

Sonia Marissa Pestana Branco Augusto

Applicant

Carla Cristina Pestana Branco

Respondent

Carla Cristina Pestana Branco N.O.

Respondent

Andries van Jaarseveld N.O.

Respondent

Celina de Jusus Branco Auguso N.O

Respondent

The Master of the High Court Free State Division

Respondent

Jorge Manuel Pestana Branco Augusto

Respondent

Quilombo (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Mautitus Crouse

Respondent

Tristan Branco

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Struck Off the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applications were urgent and complied with the rules and practice manual of the Court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were entitled to contempt and interim interdict relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both applications failed to comply with the rules and practice manual governing urgent applications. The applicants had delayed in seeking relief, particularly regarding the interim interdict, as they were aware of the respondents' conduct for more than two months. The contempt application was not properly enrolled and was delayed pending another application. The court concluded that neither application was urgent and both should be struck off the roll. Costs were awarded against the applicants, including costs for the day of 29 November 2022.

Court Disposition

Both applications struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • Both applications in the above case numbers are struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicants are to pay the costs of the application including the costs for the day of 29 November 2022.