Infinity IP (Pty) Ltd and Others v Body Corporate Of Living Moad and Others (2025/059253) [2025] ZAGPJHC 508 (26 May 2025)

Infinity IP (Pty) Ltd and Others v Body Corporate Of Living Moad and Others (2025/059253) [2025] ZAGPJHC 508 (26 May 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish the requirements for urgency as set out in Rule 6(12) and the Luna Meubel case. The discord among body corporate members and fears of financial mismanagement do not constitute urgency. The alleged hazardous construction was not supported by evidence, as respondents demonstrated that no building had commenced. The applicants' urgency was deemed self-created, and no immediate risk to public safety was established. Consequently, the application was struck for want of urgency, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 508
Parties
Applicant: Infinity IP (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Superina, Lynne Adelle; Applicant: Muller, Dayne George; Applicant: Hassan, Nasir Sheik Habibulah; Respondent: The Body Corporate of Living Moad; Respondent: Goldiner NO, David Andrew; Respondent: Kgaosoe Rufaro NO, Valerie Bendictia; Respondent: Mncadi NO, Senzo Sydney; Respondent: Laudefield (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Chokureva NO, Geoffrey; Respondent: Motsoeneng NO, Maphlapane
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2025
Case Number
2025/059253
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Sought Pending Main Application
Outcome
Application struck for want of urgency. Costs awarded to respondents.
Judges
FMM Reid
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Body Corporate Management, Curator Ad Litem, Building Regulations, Conflict of Interest
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgent Interdict Body Corporate Management Curator Ad Litem Building Regulations Conflict of Interest

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

Parties

Infinity IP (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Superina, Lynne Adelle

Applicant

Muller, Dayne George

Applicant

Hassan, Nasir Sheik Habibulah

Applicant

The Body Corporate of Living Moad

Respondent

Goldiner NO, David Andrew

Respondent

Kgaosoe Rufaro NO, Valerie Bendictia

Respondent

Mncadi NO, Senzo Sydney

Respondent

Laudefield (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Chokureva NO, Geoffrey

Respondent

Motsoeneng NO, Maphlapane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Sought Pending Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application meets the requirements for urgency under Rule 6(12).
  2. 2 Whether interim relief should be granted to appoint a curator ad litem and provisional administrator for the first respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case of improper conduct and risk to property and public safety.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish the requirements for urgency as set out in Rule 6(12) and the Luna Meubel case. The discord among body corporate members and fears of financial mismanagement do not constitute urgency. The alleged hazardous construction was not supported by evidence, as respondents demonstrated that no building had commenced. The applicants' urgency was deemed self-created, and no immediate risk to public safety was established. Consequently, the application was struck for want of urgency, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application struck for want of urgency. Costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • The application is struck for want of urgency.
  • The applicants are to pay the costs of the respondents, individually and collectively, one paying the other to be absolved, on Scale B.