Dadabhay and Another v Moosa and Others (10847/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 343 (23 March 2009)

Dadabhay and Another v Moosa and Others (10847/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 343 (23 March 2009)

The court found that there was no real opposition to the application for consolidation and that the first respondent, as a court-appointed trustee, acted without personal interest and in good faith. The application was simple and did not justify the costs of two counsel. Accordingly, the application for consolidation was granted, and no order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 343
Parties
Applicant: Ahmed Suliman Dadabhay; Applicant: Rockeya Suliman Dadabhay; Respondent: Akhter Moosa; Respondent: Fazila Dadabhay Paruk; Respondent: Ismail Suliman Dadabhay; Respondent: Sayda (aka Saida Banoo) Dadabhay; Respondent: Nafisah Dadabhay Omarjee; Respondent: Rashid Suliman Dadabhay; Respondent: Normad Investments; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds: Pretoria; Respondent: The Master of the High Court: Pretoria
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2009
Case Number
10847/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Consolidation of Proceedings
Outcome
Application for consolidation granted; no order as to costs.
Judges
Louw
Legal Topics
Consolidation of Cases, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Consolidation of Cases Costs Order

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

Ahmed Suliman Dadabhay

Applicant

Rockeya Suliman Dadabhay

Applicant

Akhter Moosa

Respondent

Fazila Dadabhay Paruk

Respondent

Ismail Suliman Dadabhay

Respondent

Sayda (aka Saida Banoo) Dadabhay

Respondent

Nafisah Dadabhay Omarjee

Respondent

Rashid Suliman Dadabhay

Respondent

Normad Investments

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds: Pretoria

Respondent

The Master of the High Court: Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Consolidation of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the Vlakfontein application (case number 10847/08) be heard together with case number 55836/07?
  2. 2 Should a costs order be made against the first respondent, including costs for two counsel?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no real opposition to the application for consolidation and that the first respondent, as a court-appointed trustee, acted without personal interest and in good faith. The application was simple and did not justify the costs of two counsel. Accordingly, the application for consolidation was granted, and no order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Application for consolidation granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The second respondent's application dated 6 March 2009 is granted: this application will be heard simultaneously by the same court hearing case number 55836/07, which has been referred to trial.
  • There is no order as to costs.