Jongwana v Vajeth and Others (2023-068488) [2023] ZAGPJHC 852 (19 July 2023)

Jongwana v Vajeth and Others (2023-068488) [2023] ZAGPJHC 852 (19 July 2023)

The court held that the applicant's mere notification of intent to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal did not constitute a valid application for leave to appeal or a notice of appeal as required by the Superior Courts Act. Since no such application or notice was lodged with the registrar, there was nothing pending before the Supreme Court of Appeal that could suspend the execution of the eviction order. The urgency claimed by the applicant was not substantiated, and the respondents were entitled to execute the writ of eviction. The application was therefore struck off the roll for want of urgency, with costs awarded against the applicant on an attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 852
Parties
Applicant: Ndyebo Treasure Jongwana; Respondent: Riaz Amod Vajeth; Respondent: Sibusisiwe Joy Vajeth; Respondent: Sheriff, Sandton South
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2023
Case Number
2023-068488
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck Off the Roll for Want of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for want of urgency with costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
T P Mudau
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Urgent Application, Leave to Appeal, Superior Courts Act Interpretation
Civil Procedure Land and Property Eviction Proceedings Urgent Application Leave to Appeal Superior Courts Act Interpretation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ndyebo Treasure Jongwana

Applicant

Riaz Amod Vajeth

Respondent

Sibusisiwe Joy Vajeth

Respondent

Sheriff, Sandton South

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck Off the Roll for Want of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was urgent and should be heard as such.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's notification of intent to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal suspended the execution of the eviction order.
  3. 3 Whether section 17(2)(b) of the Superior Courts Act allows for suspension of execution pending a petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's mere notification of intent to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal did not constitute a valid application for leave to appeal or a notice of appeal as required by the Superior Courts Act. Since no such application or notice was lodged with the registrar, there was nothing pending before the Supreme Court of Appeal that could suspend the execution of the eviction order. The urgency claimed by the applicant was not substantiated, and the respondents were entitled to execute the writ of eviction. The application was therefore struck off the roll for want of urgency, with costs awarded against the applicant on an attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for want of urgency with costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for want of urgency.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay costs on the attorney and client scale.