Khammissa v Tselana N.O and Others (2025/025127) [2025] ZAGPPHC 702 (4 July 2025)

Khammissa v Tselana N.O and Others (2025/025127) [2025] ZAGPPHC 702 (4 July 2025)

The applicant lacks legal standing to challenge the jurisdiction of the Master, Pretoria, and is not entitled to the interdictory relief sought. Her removal as trustee disqualifies her from representing the estate, and she has failed to account for assets and funds under her control. The Master, Pretoria, retains...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 702
Parties
Applicant: Sumaiya Abdool Gaffar Khammissa; Respondent: Mcclean Tselana N.O.; Respondent: Theodor Wilhelm van der Heever N.O.; Respondent: Deborah Lynn Khan N.O.; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Pretoria
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 July 2025
Case Number
2025/025127
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Pending Review of Master's Jurisdictional Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed with punitive costs.
Judges
Mbongwe
Legal Topics
Insolvency Act Section 152, Jurisdiction of Master, Locus Standi, Interdictory Relief, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Land and Property Insolvency Act Section 152 Jurisdiction of Master Locus Standi Interdictory Relief Abuse of Process

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sumaiya Abdool Gaffar Khammissa

Applicant

Mcclean Tselana N.O.

Respondent

Theodor Wilhelm van der Heever N.O.

Respondent

Deborah Lynn Khan N.O.

Respondent

The Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Pending Review of Master's Jurisdictional Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master, Pretoria, has jurisdiction over the insolvent estate of Nel.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has legal standing to challenge the Master's jurisdiction and seek interdictory relief.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to an urgent interdict pending review of the Master's decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant lacks legal standing to challenge the jurisdiction of the Master, Pretoria, and is not entitled to the interdictory relief sought. Her removal as trustee disqualifies her from representing the estate, and she has failed to account for assets and funds under her control. The Master, Pretoria, retains jurisdiction over the estate under statutory provisions, and the applicant's reliance on the Middelburg directive does not override these statutes. The application is an abuse of process aimed at evading accountability. The respondents' late filing of opposition papers is condoned due to the applicant's failure to comply with statutory service requirements, and no prejudice is...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with punitive costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs on the attorney and client scale, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel, one of whom is senior counsel, where applicable.