Gouws v Ariano 424 CC and Another (33104/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 628 (29 July 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPPHC 628
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- J Holland-Muter
- Case number
- 33104/2021
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- J Holland-Muter
- Case number
- 33104/2021
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, given the acrimonious divorce and the possibility that the respondent CC is being used as an alter ego by the applicant's estranged wife, there exists a reasonable prospect that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the eviction. The arguments presented and the facts of the case justify granting leave to appeal.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the applicant to the full court of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted to the applicant to the full court of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria.
- Costs of the application will be costs in the appeal.
- Should the appellant fail to prosecute the appeal within the Rules of Court, the appellant will be liable for the costs of this application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Jan Gerhardus Christoffel Gouws
Applicant Counsel: M Haskins SCAriano 424 CC
Respondent Counsel: S MentzCity of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Eviction Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the eviction order.
- 02
Whether the sole member of the respondent CC is using the company as an alter ego in the context of an acrimonious divorce.
- 03
Whether the applicant can be evicted from the former matrimonial home by the respondent CC.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the eviction order was improperly granted, arguing that the respondent CC is being used by his estranged wife as a vehicle to further the divorce dispute and that she is effectively the alter ego of the company. He maintained that he should not be evicted from the former matrimonial home under these circumstances.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the applicant no longer has any legal right to occupy the property, as ownership has passed to the CC, and the estranged wife no longer resides in the home. The respondent maintained that the eviction was lawful and justified under the circumstances.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal may be granted if there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, given the acrimonious divorce and the possibility that the respondent CC is being used as an alter ego by the applicant's estranged wife, there exists a reasonable prospect that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the eviction. The arguments presented and the facts of the case justify granting leave to appeal.
Obiter and limits
- The ongoing divorce proceedings between the parties have complicated the property dispute and may influence the use of corporate vehicles in litigation.
- The court refrained from making findings on the merits of the eviction, focusing solely on the prospects of success on appeal.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the applicant to the full court of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria.
- Leave to appeal is granted to the applicant to the full court of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria.
- Costs of the application will be costs in the appeal.
- Should the appellant fail to prosecute the appeal within the Rules of Court, the appellant will be liable for the costs of this application.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NUMBER: 33104/2021
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED
29 JULY 2022
In the matter between:
JAN GERHARDUS CHRISTOFFEL GOUWS Applicant
ID [....]
(First Respondent a quo)
and
ARIANO 424 CC First Respondent
(Applicant a quo)
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN Second
Respondent a quo
MUNICIPALITY
IN RE:
ARIANO 424 CC
Applicant
JAN GERHARDUS CHRISTOFFEL GOUWS First
Respondent
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN Second
Respondent
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE
TO APPEAL
[1] This application was brought a quo by the First Respondent to evict the Applicant from what was previously the matrimonial home on the small holdings now belonging to the First Respondent. The Applicant and the sole member of the First Respondent are embroiled in a rather acrimonious divorce action with no prospect of finalization in the near future.
[2] The Applicant was the previous owner of the property where the matrimonial home is situated which was occupied by himself and the now sole owner of the First Respondent. He remained living in the home even after his estranged wife moved out into one of the chalets on the property. Without dwelling into the detail it is safe to say the parties are no longer on the other's friendship list.
[3] The crux of the application a quo was whether the First Respondent could have the Applicant evicted from the previous matrimonial home even since his estranged wife (sole owner of the CC) no longer occupies the home.
[4] I am aware of the provisions of Section 17 of the Superior Court Act, 10 of 2013 when a court a quo can grant an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of that court. The crux is whether the appeal would have a reason able prospect of success on appeal.
[5] I am of the view that another court may well come to another conclusion as to whether the estranged wife of the Appellant may well be the using the CC as the vehicle to carry the battle to the Appellant in on-going divorce matter and that she may be seen as the alter ego of the CC.
[6] Having considered the arguments forwarded by Mr Haskins and Me Mentz, and reading the papers, I am of the opinion that there may well be a reason able prospect that another court may come to another decision of the facts before the court.
[7] Leave to appeal is therefore granted to the Applicant to the full court of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria.
[8] Costs of the application will be costs in the appeal. Should the appellant fail to prosecute the appeal within the Rules of Court, the appellant will be liable for the costs hereof.
Signed on 29 July 2022
J HOLLAND-MUTER
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE PRETORIA HIGH COURT
Application heard on 28 July 2022
Judgment uploaded onto Caselines on 29
July 2022
Counsel obo Appellant: M
Haskins SC
Couzyn Hertzog & Horak Inc
(annaliem@couzyn.co.za)
Counsel obo First Respondent: S
Mentz
Clark Attorneys
(eerasmus@clarks.co.za
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.