Du Preez N.O and Others v Goudini Chrome (Pty) Ltd and Another (M297/2016) [2017] ZANWHC 126 (1 September 2017)

Du Preez N.O and Others v Goudini Chrome (Pty) Ltd and Another (M297/2016) [2017] ZANWHC 126 (1 September 2017)

The court found that the interim order was not final in nature but was intended to preserve the property pending the outcome of the main action regarding ownership. The wording of the order was clear and unambiguous, indicating its interim character. The court had considered all elements required for interim interdictory relief and concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Citation
[2017] ZANWHC 126
Parties
Applicant: Andre Petrus Du Preez N.O; Applicant: Wanda Du Preez N.O; Applicant: Andre Petrus Du Preez; Applicant: Daphne Du Preez N.O; Applicant: Mr Du Preez; Applicant: R.J Borehole; Applicant: I.D Rousseau; Respondent: Goudini Chrome (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Scormin CC
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2017
Case Number
M297/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Confirmation of Interim Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
R D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Ownership Dispute, Attachment of Assets
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interim Interdict Ownership Dispute Attachment of Assets

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

Andre Petrus Du Preez N.O

Applicant

Wanda Du Preez N.O

Applicant

Andre Petrus Du Preez

Applicant

Daphne Du Preez N.O

Applicant

Mr Du Preez

Applicant

R.J Borehole

Applicant

I.D Rousseau

Applicant

Goudini Chrome (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Scormin CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Confirmation of Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim order granted was final in nature or merely interim pending the finalisation of the main action.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the interim order.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to leave to appeal the interim order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the interim order was not final in nature but was intended to preserve the property pending the outcome of the main action regarding ownership. The wording of the order was clear and unambiguous, indicating its interim character. The court had considered all elements required for interim interdictory relief and concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal to either the Full Bench of this division or the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) is dismissed.
  • The applicants in this application for leave to appeal are ordered to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.