Fisher v Dericksen N.O and Others (65494/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 512 (29 July 2021)

Fisher v Dericksen N.O and Others (65494/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 512 (29 July 2021)

The court found that the applicant's request for an interim interdict was not supported by any pending review or appeal under section 95 of the Administration of Estates Act. The Master's decision had already been made, and the applicant's proposed action for declaratory relief did not constitute a review or appeal as contemplated by section 95. Consequently, there was no basis for granting interim relief. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, and the application was dismissed. The late filing of the replying affidavit was condoned, but the new matter raised therein did not alter the outcome.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 512
Parties
Applicant: Dianna Fisher; Respondent: Monique Dercksen N.O.; Respondent: AB Lowe Attorneys; Respondent: The Master of the High Court; Respondent: Monique Dercksen
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2021
Case Number
65494/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
L Sisilana
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Maintenance Claim, Administration of Estates Act, Life Partnership, Objection to Liquidation Account
Civil Procedure Family and Children Interim Interdict Maintenance Claim Administration of Estates Act Life Partnership Objection to Liquidation Account

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dianna Fisher

Applicant

Monique Dercksen N.O.

Respondent

AB Lowe Attorneys

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

Monique Dercksen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict pending the resolution of a dispute under section 95 of the Administration of Estates Act.
  2. 2 Whether there is a pending review or appeal justifying interim relief.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's request for an interim interdict was not supported by any pending review or appeal under section 95 of the Administration of Estates Act. The Master's decision had already been made, and the applicant's proposed action for declaratory relief did not constitute a review or appeal as contemplated by section 95. Consequently, there was no basis for granting interim relief. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, and the application was dismissed. The late filing of the replying affidavit was condoned, but the new matter raised therein did not alter the outcome.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.