Laforet N.O and Another v Department of Economic-Development and Another (7145/2010,7147/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 138 (29 June 2012)

Laforet N.O and Another v Department of Economic-Development and Another (7145/2010,7147/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 138 (29 June 2012)

The court found that the applicants failed to notify the respondents of the release of the cheetah into the wild prior to the expiry of the permit, resulting in the respondents acting under the impression that the cheetah remained in their possession. The ex parte order was not confined to removal from a small enclosure but authorised removal from the property pending finalisation of the main application. The applicants had the opportunity to ventilate their case in the main application and did not establish a right to the return of the cheetah, as it was no longer exclusively on their property. The application for setting aside the ex parte order and for the return of the cheetah was...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 138
Parties
Applicant: Michel Sam Laforet N.O; Applicant: Patricia Juliet Laforet N.O; Respondent: Department of Economic-Development; Respondent: Obed Moagi; Respondent: Harmony Trust
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2012
Case Number
7145/2010,7147/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Order; Main Application for Return of Cheetah
Outcome
Application dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
Tlhapi V.V
Legal Topics
Protected Wild Animals, Limpopo Environmental Act, Ex Parte Orders, Spoliation, Permit Expiry, Rei Vindicatio
Administrative Law Environmental Law Protected Wild Animals Limpopo Environmental Act Ex Parte Orders Spoliation Permit Expiry Rei Vindicatio

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michel Sam Laforet N.O

Applicant

Patricia Juliet Laforet N.O

Applicant

Department of Economic-Development

Respondent

Obed Moagi

Respondent

Harmony Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Order; Main Application for Return of Cheetah

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte order authorising removal of the cheetah should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to the return of the cheetah to their property.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents acted unlawfully in removing the cheetah after expiry of the permit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to notify the respondents of the release of the cheetah into the wild prior to the expiry of the permit, resulting in the respondents acting under the impression that the cheetah remained in their possession. The ex parte order was not confined to removal from a small enclosure but authorised removal from the property pending finalisation of the main application. The applicants had the opportunity to ventilate their case in the main application and did not establish a right to the return of the cheetah, as it was no longer exclusively on their property. The application for setting aside the ex parte order and for the return of the cheetah was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party to pay its costs.