Gerber v De Kock NO and Another (10499/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 131 (17 June 2010)

Gerber v De Kock NO and Another (10499/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 131 (17 June 2010)

The applicant had persistently instituted similar applications, all of which were dismissed by the court. He was issued a certificate under section 7(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which entitled him to pursue private prosecution but did not entitle him to further assistance or consultation from the respondents. The relief sought under section 8(2) was incompetent, as the applicant was not a person upon whom the right to prosecute is expressly conferred by law. The applicant's conduct amounted to vexatious litigation, causing unnecessary trouble and expense to the respondents and abusing the process of the court. The requirements of section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act were...

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 131
Parties
Applicant: P.H.J. Gerber; Respondent: Advocate R.J. De Kock N.O.; Respondent: NPA Office, Cape Town
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2010
Case Number
10499/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Counter Application for Vexatious Proceedings Order After Withdrawal of Main Application
Outcome
Counter-application granted. Applicant prohibited from instituting further legal proceedings without leave of the court. Applicant ordered to pay costs.
Judges
Olivier
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigation, Abuse of Process, Private Prosecution, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigation Abuse of Process Private Prosecution 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P.H.J. Gerber

Applicant

Advocate R.J. De Kock N.O.

Respondent

NPA Office, Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Counter Application for Vexatious Proceedings Order After Withdrawal of Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted legal proceedings in the High Court.
  2. 2 Whether an order should be granted under section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, No. 3 of 1956, prohibiting the applicant from instituting further proceedings without leave of the court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to compel the respondents to consult and assist him under section 8(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had persistently instituted similar applications, all of which were dismissed by the court. He was issued a certificate under section 7(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which entitled him to pursue private prosecution but did not entitle him to further assistance or consultation from the respondents. The relief sought under section 8(2) was incompetent, as the applicant was not a person upon whom the right to prosecute is expressly conferred by law. The applicant's conduct amounted to vexatious litigation, causing unnecessary trouble and expense to the respondents and abusing the process of the court. The requirements of section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act were...

Court Disposition

Counter-application granted. Applicant prohibited from instituting further legal proceedings without leave of the court. Applicant ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • In terms of section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, No. 3 of 1956, the applicant shall not be entitled to bring any legal proceedings against any person in any court in the Republic without leave of this Court or any judge thereof.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of this application.