Madekurozwa v University of Pretoria (34337/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 203 (6 September 2012)

Madekurozwa v University of Pretoria (34337/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 203 (6 September 2012)

The court found that the third parties' special plea of lis alibi pendens could not succeed because the litigation in the Labour Court and the present matter were not between the same parties nor based on the same cause of action. The plaintiff was not cited as a defendant in the Labour Court proceedings, and no relief was sought against her in that forum. The letter of 11 September 2009, while referenced in both matters, served different purposes: in the Labour Court, it supported a claim against the defendant, not the plaintiff. The court rejected the third parties' argument for a broader test, holding that the requirements for lis alibi pendens were not met. Consequently, the special...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 203
Parties
Plaintiff: Mary-Catherine Madekurozwa; Defendant: University of Pretoria; Respondent: Prof Soley JT; Respondent: Dr Van Staden SL; Respondent: Prof Booth KK
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2012
Case Number
34337/2011
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Special Plea of Lis Alibi Pendens Argued Prior to Trial; Action Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
The special plea of lis alibi pendens raised by the third parties is dismissed. Costs are awarded against the third parties. The action is postponed sine die.
Judges
Janse van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Lis Alibi Pendens, Joinder of Parties, Protected Disclosure, Disciplinary Proceedings
Civil Procedure Lis Alibi Pendens Joinder of Parties Protected Disclosure Disciplinary Proceedings

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary-Catherine Madekurozwa

Plaintiff

University of Pretoria

Defendant

Prof Soley JT

Respondent

Dr Van Staden SL

Respondent

Prof Booth KK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Special Plea of Lis Alibi Pendens Argued Prior to Trial; Action Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the special plea of lis alibi pendens raised by the third parties is sustainable.
  2. 2 Whether there is pending litigation between the same parties, based on the same cause of action and subject matter.
  3. 3 Whether the litigation in the Labour Court and the present matter are based on the same cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the third parties' special plea of lis alibi pendens could not succeed because the litigation in the Labour Court and the present matter were not between the same parties nor based on the same cause of action. The plaintiff was not cited as a defendant in the Labour Court proceedings, and no relief was sought against her in that forum. The letter of 11 September 2009, while referenced in both matters, served different purposes: in the Labour Court, it supported a claim against the defendant, not the plaintiff. The court rejected the third parties' argument for a broader test, holding that the requirements for lis alibi pendens were not met. Consequently, the special...

Court Disposition

The special plea of lis alibi pendens raised by the third parties is dismissed. Costs are awarded against the third parties. The action is postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The Third Parties' special plea of lis alibi pendens is dismissed.
  • The Third Parties are ordered to pay the plaintiff's and the defendant's costs, including the costs of Senior Counsel.