De Winter-De Lange v Moonsamy and Another (7634/2003) [2004] ZAWCHC 22 (1 October 2004)

De Winter-De Lange v Moonsamy and Another (7634/2003) [2004] ZAWCHC 22 (1 October 2004)

The application for a final interdict against the first respondent is dismissed as the matter is both lis pendens and res judicata, given the prior protection order proceedings and the final order granted in the Magistrate's Court. The applicant had already received all necessary relief, and any further remedy could be sought by varying the protection order. The applicant lacks locus standi to seek relief regarding her businesses, as these are separate legal entities not joined in the proceedings. As against the second respondent, the application succeeds in part, as he was not party to the protection order and his conduct infringed the applicant's right to privacy. The applicant is...

Citation
[2004] ZAWCHC 22
Parties
Applicant: Maria De Winter-De Lange; Respondent: Stephen Sathor Sivan Moonsamy; Respondent: Pieter Visser
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2004
Case Number
7634/2003
Procedural Posture
Final Interdict Application / Judgment on Application for Final Interdict
Outcome
Application for final interdict against first respondent dismissed with punitive costs; application against second respondent granted in part with costs.
Judges
Y S Meer
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Domestic Violence Act, Res Judicata, Lis Pendens, Locus Standi
Civil Procedure Family and Children Final Interdict Domestic Violence Act Res Judicata Lis Pendens Locus Standi

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria De Winter-De Lange

Applicant

Stephen Sathor Sivan Moonsamy

Respondent

Pieter Visser

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Final Interdict Application / Judgment on Application for Final Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a final interdict against the first respondent in light of prior protection orders.
  2. 2 Whether the application offends against the principles of lis pendens and res judicata.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek relief regarding her businesses.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a final interdict against the first respondent is dismissed as the matter is both lis pendens and res judicata, given the prior protection order proceedings and the final order granted in the Magistrate's Court. The applicant had already received all necessary relief, and any further remedy could be sought by varying the protection order. The applicant lacks locus standi to seek relief regarding her businesses, as these are separate legal entities not joined in the proceedings. As against the second respondent, the application succeeds in part, as he was not party to the protection order and his conduct infringed the applicant's right to privacy. The applicant is...

Court Disposition

Application for final interdict against first respondent dismissed with punitive costs; application against second respondent granted in part with costs.

Orders

  • The application for a final interdict against the first respondent is dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.
  • The second respondent is interdicted and restrained from directly or indirectly communicating with the applicant except through her attorneys.