Madavanhu and Others v 1st Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd and Another (7134/2017) [2021] ZALMPPHC 56 (2 July 2021)

Madavanhu and Others v 1st Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd and Another (7134/2017) [2021] ZALMPPHC 56 (2 July 2021)

The court held that the interim order granted on 31 October 2017 was intended to be effective for a period of 24 months only, as reflected in the relief sought in Part B of the main application. Since Part B was never heard and the 24-month period has expired, the interim order, including the costs order, has lapsed and is no longer of force or effect. The applicants' physical presence in court without filing opposing papers did not constitute proper presence for the purposes of Rule 6(12)(c), and thus the reconsideration application was competent. The respondents are not entitled to tax the costs of the interim order, as the entire order has lapsed. The court exercised its power to set...

Citation
[2021] ZALMPPHC 56
Parties
Applicant: Gaylord Tapiwa Madavanhu; Applicant: Abigail Pheladi Mokaba; Applicant: Thokozile Pinkie Mohlari; Applicant: Oracle Financial Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: 1st Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Kerstel Financial Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 July 2021
Case Number
7134/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Reconsideration of Interim Order Under Rule 6(12)(c)
Outcome
Application for reconsideration granted; interim order set aside.
Judges
M V Semenya
Legal Topics
Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration, Interim Interdict, Costs Order, Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration Interim Interdict Costs Order Default Judgment

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gaylord Tapiwa Madavanhu

Applicant

Abigail Pheladi Mokaba

Applicant

Thokozile Pinkie Mohlari

Applicant

Oracle Financial Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

1st Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Kerstel Financial Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Reconsideration of Interim Order Under Rule 6(12)(c)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim order granted on 31 October 2017 has lapsed and should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are entitled to tax the costs of the interim order despite the lapse of the order.
  3. 3 Whether physical presence in court without filing opposing papers constitutes presence for purposes of Rule 6(12)(c).

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the interim order granted on 31 October 2017 was intended to be effective for a period of 24 months only, as reflected in the relief sought in Part B of the main application. Since Part B was never heard and the 24-month period has expired, the interim order, including the costs order, has lapsed and is no longer of force or effect. The applicants' physical presence in court without filing opposing papers did not constitute proper presence for the purposes of Rule 6(12)(c), and thus the reconsideration application was competent. The respondents are not entitled to tax the costs of the interim order, as the entire order has lapsed. The court exercised its power to set...

Court Disposition

Application for reconsideration granted; interim order set aside.

Orders

  • The interim order granted in Part A by M G Phaduti J on 31 October 2017 is set aside as it has lapsed.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application.