Mampuru and Others v Executor of the Estate of the Late Phillip Tbobakgale Estate and Others (32099/21) [2021] ZAGPPHC 465 (19 July 2021)

Mampuru and Others v Executor of the Estate of the Late Phillip Tbobakgale Estate and Others (32099/21) [2021] ZAGPPHC 465 (19 July 2021)

The application was struck from the roll because the applicants failed to comply with the procedural requirements for urgent applications, including proper enrolment in accordance with the Judge President’s Directive. The urgency claimed by the applicants was found to be self-created due to their delay in acting after the death of Phillip Thobakgale and their unilateral removal of the matter from the roll. Furthermore, the ownership of the vehicles was disputed, and the facts indicated that the applicants were never in possession of the vehicles before or after the deceased’s death. The court held that motion proceedings are not suitable for resolving material factual disputes and that...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 465
Parties
Applicant: Portia Itumeleng Mampuru; Applicant: Dineo Hazel Thubakgale; Applicant: Angeline Thobakgale; Respondent: Executor of the Estate of the Late Phillip Thobakgale; Respondent: Busisiwe Thobakgale; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Pretoria
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2021
Case Number
32099/21
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck From the Roll at Urgent Court
Outcome
Application struck from the roll with costs against the applicants.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Urgent Application Requirements, Possession of Property, Ownership Dispute, Motion Proceedings, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgent Application Requirements Possession of Property Ownership Dispute Motion Proceedings 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Portia Itumeleng Mampuru

Applicant

Dineo Hazel Thubakgale

Applicant

Angeline Thobakgale

Applicant

Executor of the Estate of the Late Phillip Thobakgale

Respondent

Busisiwe Thobakgale

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck From the Roll at Urgent Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was urgent and properly enrolled on the urgent court roll.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established urgency in their claim to the motor vehicles.
  3. 3 Whether motion proceedings are appropriate where material facts are in dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was struck from the roll because the applicants failed to comply with the procedural requirements for urgent applications, including proper enrolment in accordance with the Judge President’s Directive. The urgency claimed by the applicants was found to be self-created due to their delay in acting after the death of Phillip Thobakgale and their unilateral removal of the matter from the roll. Furthermore, the ownership of the vehicles was disputed, and the facts indicated that the applicants were never in possession of the vehicles before or after the deceased’s death. The court held that motion proceedings are not suitable for resolving material factual disputes and that...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll with costs against the applicants.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll.
  • The applicants, jointly and severally the one to pay the other to be absolved, are to pay the costs of the application.