Erasmus v Alcock and Others (228/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 96 (28 February 2017)

Erasmus v Alcock and Others (228/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 96 (28 February 2017)

The court found that the applicant's claim of urgency was not substantiated. The applicant had been aware of the relevant court orders and the respondents' intentions for several months but failed to act timeously. The communications between the parties made it clear that the respondents did not accept that the pending appeal regarding the rescission of judgment suspended their right to execute the eviction order. The applicant's delay in bringing the application rendered any urgency self-created. The court held that the applicant could have sought relief earlier and that the matter did not warrant urgent consideration. Accordingly, the application was struck off the roll for lack of...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 96
Parties
Applicant: Andre Carl Erasmus; Respondent: Anthony Graham Alcock; Respondent: Susan Karen Alcock; Respondent: Sheriff of the High Court, Pretoria East
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2017
Case Number
228/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Vary Previous Order; Struck From Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
M F Legodi
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Eviction Proceedings, Variation of Court Order, Self Created Urgency
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgent Interdict Eviction Proceedings Variation of Court Order Self Created Urgency

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andre Carl Erasmus

Applicant

Anthony Graham Alcock

Respondent

Susan Karen Alcock

Respondent

Sheriff of the High Court, Pretoria East

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Vary Previous Order; Struck From Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to vary the previous court order should be heard as an urgent matter.
  2. 2 Whether the urgency claimed by the applicant is self-created and justifies striking the matter from the roll.
  3. 3 Whether the pending appeal and condonation application suspend the respondents' right to execute the eviction order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim of urgency was not substantiated. The applicant had been aware of the relevant court orders and the respondents' intentions for several months but failed to act timeously. The communications between the parties made it clear that the respondents did not accept that the pending appeal regarding the rescission of judgment suspended their right to execute the eviction order. The applicant's delay in bringing the application rendered any urgency self-created. The court held that the applicant could have sought relief earlier and that the matter did not warrant urgent consideration. Accordingly, the application was struck off the roll for lack of...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck off from the roll due to lack of urgency which is self-created.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the application.