Lessing v Serengeti Golf and Wildlife Estate (28609/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 260 (13 September 2017)

Lessing v Serengeti Golf and Wildlife Estate (28609/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 260 (13 September 2017)

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the dispute between the parties has been resolved and the applicant's status quo ante restored, rendering the appeal moot. The judgment does not conflict with the authorities cited by the respondent, as those cases dealt with contractual rights rather than property rights. The facts of the present matter relate to the exercise of property rights, and the extension of the ratio in the cited authorities is not appropriate in this case. There is no reason for the appeal to be heard under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 260
Parties
Applicant: Lessing, Thomas Sarel; Respondent: Serengeti Golf and Wildlife Estate
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2017
Case Number
28609/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Urgent Interdict
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
L T Modiba
Legal Topics
Interdict, Access Rights, Possession, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interdict Access Rights Possession Leave to Appeal Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lessing, Thomas Sarel

Applicant

Serengeti Golf and Wildlife Estate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Urgent Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether electronic access to a residential estate and communal facilities constitutes possession for purposes of an interdict.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal would have any practical effect given the restoration of the applicant's status quo ante.
  3. 3 Whether the judgment conflicts with cited authorities on possession and electronic access rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the dispute between the parties has been resolved and the applicant's status quo ante restored, rendering the appeal moot. The judgment does not conflict with the authorities cited by the respondent, as those cases dealt with contractual rights rather than property rights. The facts of the present matter relate to the exercise of property rights, and the extension of the ratio in the cited authorities is not appropriate in this case. There is no reason for the appeal to be heard under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.